New Member

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath required by law:
Chris Paul Webb, for Blackpool South.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Treasury

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Cost of Living

Allan Dorans: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in the cost of living on households in 2024.

Marion Fellows: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in the cost of living on households in 2024.

Patricia Gibson: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of increases in the cost of living on households in 2024.

Laura Trott: The Office for Budget Responsibility expects UK living standards to grow in all years of the forecast period.

Allan Dorans: The Building Societies Association described the housing market as “broken”, with first-time homebuyers facing the toughest housing market conditions in 70 years. With the International Monetary Fund projecting interest rates to be around 5% for the remainder of the year and the Government rejecting the Scottish National party’s calls to reinstate mortgage interest relief, does the Chancellor anticipate any relief for first-time buyers in the near future?

Laura Trott: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bank of England is independent. The good news is that the OBR expects inflation rates to fall to near target in the very near future.

Marion Fellows: The Warm this Winter campaign has found that households will have to pay an additional £1.3 billion to help energy companies to cover bad energy debt. What assurance can the Minister give that the extra charge will be passed on to indebted customers to alleviate their debt burden, rather than it being allowed to just alleviate debt for energy companies?

Laura Trott: It is good news that energy prices are set to fall. The hon. Lady will know that the Chancellor abolished the surcharge in one of his first Budgets.

Patricia Gibson: The UK is set to have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and the lowest rate of growth in the entire OECD in 2025. Bizarrely, the Chancellor claimed ludicrously that the Tories are winning the war on inflation. With GDP per capita continuing to fall as part of the longest unbroken decline since records began, who does the Minister think in the real world really believes that this plan is working, and that the cost of living crisis is easing?

Laura Trott: It is important to note that inflation has more than halved since the Prime Minister took office, and is now at 3.2%. That will have a material impact on the cost of living pressures on households. In addition, support this year includes cutting national insurance rates across the UK and raising the local housing allowance. Benefits are up by 6.7%, the national living wage is up by 9.8%, and pensions are up by 8.5%. We are on the side of the British people.

Caroline Dinenage: As you know, Mr Speaker, it is not solely households who face increased cost pressures: businesses across our communities do as well, particularly small music venues, which are shutting at the rate of two a week. Ahead of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry into that issue, what thought has the Minister given to a VAT cut for grassroots music venues across our constituencies?

Laura Trott: I know my hon. Friend cares deeply about this matter. I know she has a report coming out in a few weeks, and I look forward to reading it.

Theresa Villiers: It is crucial to bring down inflation and ensure that we create the right climate for reductions in interest rates and further tax cuts. Does the Minister agree that is the best way to tackle the cost of living pressures?

Laura Trott: As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Greg Smith: In the past financial year, Buckinghamshire Council supported 4,186 people struggling with the cost of living through the £4.8 million of funding from the household support fund. The council’s Helping Hand scheme continues, with £2.4 million of funding through to this September. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Buckinghamshire households who are struggling with the cost of living should get in touch with Buckinghamshire Council to get the help and support that they need from the Helping Hand scheme, which is funded by this Government?

Laura Trott: My hon. Friend is completely correct. The household support fund has done so much to help people struggling with the cost of living. I commend the way that Buckinghamshire Council has handed out the money, and, indeed, will continue to do so throughout the year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: Westminster’s cost of living crisis disproportionately affects those on low incomes, young people, and people living in rural areas with limited travel options. One example is the soaring cost of car insurance, which is inexplicably higher in Scotland than in most other parts of the UK. A 22-year-old with five years’ driving experience might expect their premiums to go down, yet they pay on average £667 more than they did when they passed their test at the age of 17. Why are the UK Government doing absolutely nothing to hold insurance companies to account?

Laura Trott: I cannot comment on the specifics of car insurance companies, but what I can say is that for people struggling with the cost of living, whatever form that struggle takes, working-age benefits are going up by 6.7% this year.

Drew Hendry: Clearly, the Minister has paid no attention to this matter at all. This issue is exceptional to the UK. While prices for car insurance have more than doubled in the UK, they have gone up by only 18% across the EU over the same period, and car insurance has gone down by 20% in an independent Ireland. What are the reasons? Is it Brexit, or shameless profiteering? Or, as we suspect, has Westminster just given up on people in the cost of living crisis?

Laura Trott: I think that we have heard enough from the Brexit zombies on the other side of the Chamber.

Drew Hendry: Answer the question.

Laura Trott: I am, if the hon. Gentleman would just like to listen. The national living wage is up by 9.8% this year, which helps with exactly the type of costs that he is talking about.

Co-operative Sector

Jim McMahon: What assessment he has made of the contribution of the co-operative sector to the economy.

Bim Afolami: The Government acknowledge the vital contribution that co-operatives make to the economy. The “Co-operative and Mutual Economy 2023” report found that co-operatives generated a combined annual turnover of £41 billion, a 3.7% increase from 2022 levels.

Jim McMahon: As the Minister outlines, co-operatives are worth £41 billion to the UK economy; moreover, they are, on average, 10% more productive than other businesses, twice as likely to survive the first five years of trading, and have higher rates of investment than other private businesses. What more can the Government do to encourage more co-operatives to thrive? Does he believe, as I do, that the creation of co-operative development agencies in every region has to be part of that?

Bim Afolami: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. I note his long-held interest in the co-operative sector, and the work that he does on it. So, what are the Government doing? They are doing two things specifically. First, they recently took the further step of backing the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023; they also commissioned the Law Commission to review  the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014 to make sure that co-operatives can do as much as possible to benefit the wider economy.

Alexander Stafford: Over the past two years, Rotherham Council has spent £240,000 promoting co-operatives and employee ownership. Does the Minister agree that this huge amount of money would be better spent on fixing potholes and opening youth clubs, rather than on an ideological viewpoint, with no measurable outcome for the people of Rotherham?

Bim Afolami: I do not wish to comment specifically on Rotherham, but the best way of promoting co-operatives in general is to allow them to thrive as best they can, and to support their members in doing what they do best, which is to help their local economies—not necessarily through huge amounts of public subsidy, but through doing what the co-operative movement was founded to do, which is, as I have said, to support local economies and local people.

Taxation: Living Standards

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

Paul Blomfield: What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his tax policies on living standards.

Nigel Huddleston: Thanks to a combination of national insurance cuts and above-inflation increases to thresholds since 2010, the average worker on £35,400 will pay more than £1,500 less in personal taxes this year. In addition, maintaining fuel duty rates at their current levels represents a further £13 billion benefit to households over the three years since the introduction of the freeze.

Kerry McCarthy: The Minister will know that people are still really struggling with the cost of living crisis. One way that the Government could help is by seeking a bespoke veterinary agreement with the EU. That would not only cut costs for businesses but stop food prices rising even more. A future Labour Government would do that, so why will the Government not commit to it?

Nigel Huddleston: The hon. Lady’s first comment was correct: everyone in this House recognises the extreme cost of living challenges over the past few years, and that is precisely why the Government have adopted the strategy of a laser focus on inflation, combined with tax cuts and, recently, national insurance cuts. We have a very constructive and positive relationship with the EU, and are always engaging with it on a variety of matters.

Paul Blomfield: In the run-up to last week’s elections, the Prime Minister never stopped talking about national insurance cuts, and the Minister talked about them again today, but the Government have been giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Does the Minister recognise that according to the Resolution Foundation, the combined impact of all the Government’s tax changes leaves workers who earn less than £26,000 a year worse off? Will he apologise to workers in South Yorkshire, whose average earnings are close to that level, for misrepresenting the position?

Nigel Huddleston: Of course we recognise the challenges for those on the lowest incomes, which is precisely why we have adopted a whole bunch of other measures, including on housing allowance. If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the national insurance cuts that we introduced, why did the Leader of the Opposition support them?

Lindsay Hoyle: Congratulations, Mr Chishti, on your engagement at the weekend. You are not crossing the Floor, I understand.

Rehman Chishti: Most definitely not!
It has just been said that there is a real cost of living challenge, and that is absolutely correct. A key part of that relates to the war in Ukraine, which poses real challenges for energy supplies to the United Kingdom. As a former Minister who applied sanctions to Russia and looked at the oil price cap, I know that we need to ensure that what happens in Ukraine is offset by actions that hold Russia to account and address the cost of living. The US has seized Russian assets to pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine; the UK should do the same. That would help ease the burden on the UK economy and the taxpayer.

Nigel Huddleston: It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend in his place. He raises a variety of really important issues that show precisely why we work across Government—there are multiple Departments involved—on matters relating to sanctions. The invasion of Ukraine has had an incredible impact around the world, not just in the UK. Everybody in this House should welcome the fact that, because of action taken by this Government and the Bank of England, and other measures, inflation is now falling and will soon hit target.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Opposition spokesman.

James Murray: The Conservatives’ decisions in this Parliament mean that the average family will face a tax bill that is £870 a year higher, and pensioner taxpayers will pay £960 a year more. The director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
“This remains a Parliament of record tax rises.”
Higher taxes, squeezed living standards and weaker public services—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. Does the Minister understand why the country has lost confidence in them?

Nigel Huddleston: Many people in this country remember the abysmal economic performance of the last Labour Government. The tax-free allowance was £6,475; it is now £12,570. More than 1.5 million people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. The Government have a focus: now that the economy is turning, we want to put more money into people’s pockets. That is exactly what we are doing with the national insurance cuts and other measures, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome that.

Public Sector Productivity Programme

John Penrose: If he will use outcome evaluations to assess the effectiveness of the Public Sector Productivity Programme.

Jeremy Hunt: Improving public sector productivity is a major focus for this Government, which is why I announced £4.2 billion of funding to make our public services more efficient in the Budget.

John Penrose: As a former Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend will know that evidence-based medicine transformed health productivity, systematically cutting out ineffectual treatments and replacing them with ones that worked better. Using the evaluation task force and the What Works centres to do the same for other public services, including back to work programmes, prisoner rehabilitation and early interventions for supported families, could be the productivity-improving silver bullet that he needs, so can I urge him to beat a path to their door?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to talk about the What Works programme, which has delivered more than 500 trials and is recognised internationally. There are some very good example in the NHS of what is working, including the NHS app. That is now used by 75% of NHS patients—including 17,000 over-90s, so let no one assume that older people are not internet savvy.

Clive Efford: Some £8.7 billion was wasted on defective personal protective equipment during the covid crisis, much of it paid to people associated with the Conservative party. People did not have to be Conservative party members to benefit from the fast track, but it did not half help. What is the Chancellor doing to get public money back from those people who sold that defective equipment to the NHS, and does it not just show that we cannot trust the Tories with public money?

Jeremy Hunt: What it shows is that we took very difficult decisions in the pandemic to speed up access to PPE for frontline workers, who were literally dying at the time—but there should be no hiding place whatsoever for anyone who commits fraud on taxpayers, which is why there have been over 100 arrests.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Darren Jones: The only productivity improvement we have seen from this Government is the awarding of wasteful contracts. On top of all the PPE waste that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to, there are still £1 billion-worth of unresolved PPE contracts that this Government awarded, but that have not been delivered on. Only one company, PPE Medpro, is facing legal action. Why are the Government not taking legal action against the other companies that have not delivered on their contract with members of the public?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me be clear: there is absolutely no hiding place for anyone, whether they are connected to the Conservative party, the Labour Party or any other party. If they have defrauded the taxpayer, we will go after them.

Darren Jones: The Chancellor says that he is making progress, and that there is no hiding place, but that money belongs to our public services. The Government know that the contracts have not been delivered on, but  they will not reveal the names of the companies and the contracts that have not been delivered on. If there is no hiding place, why would the Chancellor not name them today?

Jeremy Hunt: Because we are taking legal action, and as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, when we take legal action, that information belongs to the police.

Tax Reduction

Maggie Throup: What steps his Department is taking to reduce taxes.

Jeremy Hunt: The spring Budget delivered personal tax cuts, including cuts to national insurance, for 29 million workers. That means that someone on the average salary has the lowest effective personal tax rate since 1975, and that is the lowest effective tax rate of any G7 country.

Maggie Throup: While responsible tax cuts, such as the £900 cut to national insurance contributions, are welcome, can my right hon. Friend update the House on when we can expect VAT to be abolished on high-factor sunscreen? That would not only help to protect more people from one of the leading causes of preventable cancer, but could save the NHS approximately £55 billion.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend and I have talked about this issue on many occasions. She will know that high-factor sunscreen is on NHS prescription for certain conditions and is VAT-free when dispensed by a chemist. With my Chancellor hat on, I should say that we have had £50 billion of requests for VAT relief since Brexit. It is great to have the freedom to make those changes, but we have to be honest about the trade-offs. In particular, we must ensure that if we do apply reliefs, the benefits are fed through to consumers.

Sammy Wilson: This weekend, I spoke to a constituent who has invested heavily in a restaurant in my constituency over the last 15 years. He was in desperation because his business, like two other businesses that have already closed in the town, is being crushed by VAT, business rates and increases in corporate taxes. He finds that he can no longer sustain a business that has become the love of his life. Does the Chancellor realise that the tax burden he is imposing on small and medium-sized businesses is crushing this economy?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing everything we can to support small businesses. Businesses like the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentions have received, for two years in a row, a 75% discount on their business rates. That is a massive leg up for businesses recovering from the pandemic. We have also made sure that any increases in corporation tax apply only to larger businesses. There is only one major party in British politics that wants to bring down the tax burden for businesses, and it is the Conservative party.

Green Book

Chris Loder: Whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the adequacy of its guidance entitled “The Green Book.”

Laura Trott: In 2020, the Treasury undertook a comprehensive review of the Green Book and how it is used in practice, and we have made several changes as a result. We regularly update the Green Book to ensure that it remains fit for purpose, and we published a further technical update in 2022.

Chris Loder: I represent a rural constituency in Dorset in the south-west of England. My right hon. Friend will know that it is important to me and my colleagues in the region that the Government give due consideration to the south-west when it comes to allocating funds and investment opportunities to it. Typically, the Green Book has not adequately allocated funds in favour of Dorset and neighbouring counties. What steps will she take to correct that?

Laura Trott: My hon. Friend is, as ever, a brilliant advocate for his local area. I note that West Dorset is getting £4.4 million from the UK shared prosperity fund, and the wider Dorset area is benefiting from a range of other significant investments, including £9.7 million from the future high streets fund, but I am happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Jim Shannon: Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), I represent a rural constituency. Strangford is the reason I am here, and I want to represent it well. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that all updates to and volumes of the Green Book apply to Northern Ireland as well as to other areas across this great nation?

Laura Trott: The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point—one that I will be discussing with the Northern Ireland Finance Minister in a couple of weeks.

Small Businesses: Fiscal Support

Stephen Crabb: What fiscal steps his Department is taking to support small businesses.

Gareth Davies: Small businesses drive our economy, and we support them to thrive using levers across Government, whether through our small business rates relief, by increasing the VAT registration threshold, or providing reliefs such as the annual investment allowance.

Stephen Crabb: In England, many small businesses receive a 75% reduction in business rates thanks to action by this Conservative Government. In Wales, the Labour Administration have cut that level of support to 40%, meaning that excellent hospitality businesses such as Martha’s Vineyard in my constituency must find thousands of pounds more in tax. Does the Minister agree that that is not the way to support the tourism and hospitality sector at a challenging time, and that it is an example of the Labour party saying one thing here at Westminster and doing another where they are in government?

Gareth Davies: My right hon. Friend is right that in the autumn statement the Government extended retail, hospitality and leisure relief in England, essentially to cut tax for 230,000 businesses—a tax cut worth £2.5 billion.   The Barnett formula allows the Welsh Labour Government to offer similar relief to Welsh businesses, and it is disappointing, if not surprising, that they have chosen not to.

Helen Morgan: On Friday, I visited the K C Jones Motor Repairs garage, a medium-sized business of very long standing in Oswestry in North Shropshire. One of the many challenges that it faces, alongside astronomical energy bills and a shortage of skilled labour, is the business rates that it needs to pay because it must have a high street presence in order for people to take their cars there. Will the Minister consider fundamental reform of business rates so that businesses that need a high street presence can continue to exist? At the moment, they are under huge pressure.

Gareth Davies: As I was saying, we have a 75% relief for most high street businesses. I encourage the hon. Lady to look at the package as a whole. We have increased the VAT threshold, bringing 28,000 businesses like the one she describes out of paying any VAT at all, on top of a range of other measures.

Andrea Jenkyns: The cherished independent shops and restaurants that line the streets of Morley serve the lifeblood of our community. In order to safeguard the very heart of our local economy, what bold measures is the Department taking to counter the oppressive weight of skyrocketing business rates imposed by the financially reckless Labour-led Leeds City Council?

Gareth Davies: I know that my hon. Friend is a great champion of all businesses in Morley and across Leeds because I have seen it at first hand. I point out to her as well that the Government have reduced taxation on small businesses, we have increased the VAT threshold, and we have a 75% rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, which she alluded to. It is this Conservative Government who are on the side of hard-working people and businesses across Morley and around the country.

Wera Hobhouse: In the last decade, more than one music venue closed every week, including Moles in Bath. That has resulted in the loss of 4,000 jobs, 14,250 events, over 190,000 performance opportunities, £9 million of income for musicians and £59 million in lost direct economic activity. What are the Government doing to support small music venues?

Gareth Davies: We are doing a lot. We are increasing the VAT threshold, and we have a rates relief package. The recent spring Budget was one of the biggest packages supporting our cultural industries that this country has ever seen, and I encourage the hon. Lady to look at it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Tulip Siddiq: Since 2022, almost 400 communities have lost their local bank branch, which has had a devastating impact on local and small businesses. Despite witnessing the decline of the British high street, the Government have been dragging their feet on rolling out banking hubs, which would help local and small businesses. Will the Minister finally back the Labour party’s plans to provide a banking hub in every community that needs one?

Gareth Davies: Banking hubs are driven by commercial organisations. Any area that loses bank branches is entitled to get a banking hub. Of course, we want to see more across the country, but we also have to recognise that banking has changed and the ways in which people bank have moved more towards digital, so it is right that commercial organisations take commercial decisions.

Regional Economic Inequality

Liz Twist: What recent fiscal steps he has taken to help reduce regional economic inequalities.

Gareth Davies: At the spring Budget, we built on the £15 billion of levelling-up commitments made since 2019. We announced a trailblazer devolution deal for the north-east mayoral combined authority and a £400 million extension to the long-term plan for towns.

Liz Twist: The cross-party Public Accounts Committee has revealed that the Government’s levelling-up funds were subject to a “worrying lack of transparency”, with rules for accessing funding changing while bids were still being assessed. Will the Minister therefore apologise to the 55 local authorities rejected for funding that were not told in advance that their applications had no chance of success?

Gareth Davies: This is the Government who implemented £15 billion of support for communities outside of London and the south-east, which is one of the reasons why median pay growth is higher in every region outside of London and the south-east. Of course, there is a robust methodology and criteria for selecting places for funding, and I encourage the hon. Lady to look at those criteria.

Peter Gibson: With the Darlington economic campus now having passed 750 employees and being well on its way to providing over 1,500 roles in my constituency, what assessment has my hon. Friend made of its contribution to the local economy, to reducing inequalities and to our levelling-up agenda?

Gareth Davies: The Darlington economic campus is an important part of this Government’s operations and of our Government estate, but it is also important to the people of Darlington, and not just in terms of the jobs it has created. Of course, it builds on the back of significant funding on my hon. Friend’s watch: the £22 million town deal and the £6 million as part of the shared prosperity fund. That is one of the reasons why the people voted to elect Ben Houchen just the other day.

Emma Hardy: Regional inequality may be made worse by my constituents facing having to pay again for funeral plans after they were sold fake funeral plans by Legacy funeral directors. Many simply cannot afford to pay for those plans again and, instead of having the funeral that their families wanted for them, they will only be able to have the free service offered by the council. Does the Minister agree that banks should offer more discretion when looking at victims of fraud, and will he meet with me to discuss this specific case further?

Gareth Davies: I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances that the hon. Lady has described. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in whose portfolio this issue sits, will meet with her.

Martin Vickers: For many years, coastal communities have suffered economic inequalities, and we all know that the best way of changing that is to create the conditions for investment and the jobs that go with them. Despite the good work that the Government have done, we still need more funding in areas such as Cleethorpes. Could the Minister outline what plans the Government may have for bringing forward further schemes in the near future?

Gareth Davies: It is right to acknowledge that funding has gone in. I completely appreciate the specific challenges that coastal communities face, but it is important to look at the package of measures to level up—not just funding such as the shared prosperity fund, levelling-up fund and towns fund, but the 13 devolution deals, 13 investment zones and 12 freeports. These are all packages and measures that will help areas such as my hon. Friend’s, but I will always keep his area in mind.

Cost of Living

Flick Drummond: What fiscal steps he is taking to support households with the cost of living.

Nadia Whittome: What fiscal steps he is taking to support households with increases in the cost of living.

Jeremy Hunt: Over the last two years, cost of living support has totalled £96 billion, or an average of £3,400 per household. As a result, living standards, which were predicted to fall 2% last year, rose by nearly 1%, and we are on track to reach pre-pandemic living standards two years early.

Flick Drummond: I welcome the support that the Government have provided throughout covid and the recent energy crisis for my constituents in Meon Valley—I thank the Government. It has made a huge difference to people’s domestic budgets, but now inflation is falling and the economy is improving, can we look forward to the Government’s continued support with a range of fiscal steps, including cutting taxes?

Jeremy Hunt: We can absolutely do that. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that the biggest single thing we can do to help people with cost of living pressures is to bring down inflation. That seems to be something that escaped the shadow Chancellor this morning, when she said it was not a big deal to get inflation down to its target. It is a very big deal for families facing a cost of living crisis, and she needs to know that inflation falls by design, not by accident.

Nadia Whittome: The Chancellor can talk all he wants about inflation falling, but this is little comfort to my constituents who are still struggling to make ends meet. Even with the national insurance cut, annual post-tax earnings for the average family remain on course to be £380 lower at the start of 2025 than they  were in 2021—a gap not predicted to close until 2029. This means yet more years of lost wage growth, so when will the Government get serious about tackling the low-wage, insecure work that they have allowed to become the norm in this country?

Jeremy Hunt: Could I suggest, if the hon. Member really thinks that inflation falling from 11% to 3.2% is little comfort to her constituents, that she might want to talk to a few more of them, because actually it is the biggest single thing that we can do to deal with cost of living pressures. If she says, “What are we doing to tackle the scourge of low pay?” we have abolished it by raising the national living wage to £11.44 this year alone. For someone working full-time, that will mean an increase in their pay of £1,800.

Child Trust Fund: Recipients with Disabilities

Vicky Foxcroft: Whether he has taken recent steps with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that people with disabilities can access their child trust fund when they turn 18.

Bim Afolami: On 9 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice launched a programme to raise awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in relation to how and when to access child trust funds. The first part of this programme is a new toolkit. The Ministry of Justice will continue that programme of work to raise awareness of how to obtain legal authority to access a child trust fund, for which a court fee waiver is available.

Vicky Foxcroft: The only way for parents of young people without capacity to access their child trust fund is through a deputyship order. After consulting on the introduction of a mental capacity small payment scheme, which would allow a suitable person temporary access to release the funds, Ministers opted not to legislate, and instead introduced a toolkit, as has been said. Over 80,000 young people in England and Wales remain locked out of their child trust fund, so would the Minister agree to look at this again?

Bim Afolami: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I know how avidly she campaigns in this area. The House should know—and you should know, Mr Speaker—that I recently met my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) to discuss this very issue. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady as well to discuss it and to see if we can get a solution, because we do want to get this problem fixed.

Jeremy Quin: I am grateful to the Minister for the meeting to which he referred. Will he compliment financial institutions that are doing their utmost to make it easier for their disabled customers to access their child trust funds and, if his ministerial colleagues can find a way of making that easier across the board, would that have his support and that of his colleagues in the Treasury?

Bim Afolami: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Indeed, working with not just the Ministry of Justice, but the Department for Work and Pensions is key to deliver this, as is working with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that any financial institution  that does the right thing does not lose out or face any regulatory issues. That is indeed something that has my support and that of the Treasury, and we will work across Government to get this right.

VAT Exemption for International Visitors

Andrew Rosindell: Whether he plans to reintroduce VAT-free shopping for international visitors.

Nigel Huddleston: As stated in the spring Budget, the Government are considering the findings of the review by the Office for Budget Responsibility of VAT-free shopping, alongside industry representations and broader data. We continue to welcome further submissions and representations in response to those findings.

Andrew Rosindell: Data from Heathrow, the United Kingdom’s largest and busiest airport, shows that despite a near-full recovery in passenger volumes post lockdown, retail spend on affected goods is 32% below pre-pandemic levels. That figure is shocking. Heathrow airport joins hundreds of businesses in calling on the Government to reintroduce VAT-free shopping for tourists, or similar incentives. Will the Minister acknowledge the figures, listen to the industry and reinstate that popular policy, as British businesses are demanding?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I will not only listen to the industry, but I met Heathrow just last week to hear its representations. The challenge is the way that modelling, and forecast and behavioural changes can be confidently assessed. Government estimates suggest that a worldwide scheme could cost as much as £2.5 billion. The challenge is the so-called deadweight cost that could happen by subsidising spending that otherwise would exist anyway, versus the incremental benefit that we could get from new visitors coming to the UK. Of course that is a behavioural change based on a tax change. It is based on a variety of assumptions, and therefore the modelling and assumptions underlying it vary, but I am listening to all representations.

High income Child Benefit Charge

Heather Wheeler: What assessment he has made of the impact of raising the high income child benefit charge threshold on household incomes.

Nigel Huddleston: The high income child benefit charge threshold was raised to £60,000 on 6 April 2024. The point at which child benefit is fully withdrawn was also increased to £80,000, and the Government estimate that that will take 170,000 families out of paying the charge in 2024-25. The Government also plan to administer HICBC on a household rather than an individual basis by April 2026.

Heather Wheeler: I have been contacted by many South Derbyshire parents who are caught in this unfair situation. Can the Minister be even more precise about the savings that this will now mean for my affected constituents?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and continual interest in this area. The changes to the high income child benefit charge mean that almost half a million hard-working families will gain an average of £1,260 towards the cost of raising their children in 2024-25. She will recognise that that is a meaningful difference for her constituents, and for those across the country.

Topical Questions

Debbie Abrahams: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: The shadow Chancellor often likes to ask what has improved over the past 14 years, so I thought I would update the House on some of the latest statistics about the British economy. According to UN conference data, we have now overtaken France, the Netherlands and Japan to become the world’s fourth largest exporter. The International Monetary Fund says that we will grow faster over the next six years than France, Italy, Germany or Japan, and there are 200,000 more people in work compared with a year ago, which means that, for every single day Conservative Governments have been in office since 2010, there are 800 more people in work, many of whom will be very pleased that we are sticking to our plan.

Debbie Abrahams: We should add to the Chancellor’s statistics that we have the widest economic inequalities in Europe. Last week, Professor Sir Michael Marmot published new analysis showing significant increases in health inequalities—how long we live, and how long we live in good health—and that is particularly the case between the north and south-east England. That is of course driven by the economic inequalities that I have just referred to. What assessment has the Chancellor undertaken on the loss in productivity directly as a result of that increase in health inequalities?

Jeremy Hunt: If the hon. Lady is concerned about economic inequalities, she will be horrified to know that they were even worse under the last Labour Government. They have been reduced under this Government. When it comes to health inequalities, it is this Government who are phasing out smoking for everyone under the age of 14—one of the biggest single things in a generation that will reduce health inequalities and mean that poorer people live longer.

John Penrose: The Government’s plans for a carbon border adjustment mechanism will create a level playing field for British manufacturers facing un-green, high-carbon competition from abroad, but to comply with free trade rules, the CBAM must be an environmental measure, rather than revenue-raising trade protectionism. Will Ministers confirm that it will be fiscally neutral and that any net receipts will be returned to taxpayers, perhaps even by cutting fuel duty or green levies on energy bills?

Jeremy Hunt: I can confirm that we are very alive to cost of living pressures caused by fuel duty. In fact, we spent £6.4 billion freezing the duties on fuel, which will save the average motorist £50 over the coming year.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Chancellor.

Rachel Reeves: At the Budget, the Chancellor set out his intention to abolish national insurance—a £46 billion annual commitment with no clear plan as to how it would be paid for. One way to do it would be to merge income tax and national insurance. Does the Chancellor agree with analysis from the House of Commons Library that shows that merging those two would increase income tax by 8p in the pound?

Jeremy Hunt: Which is why it is not our policy.

Rachel Reeves: That is strange, because the day after the Budget, the Chancellor told Sky News that
“you can end that unfairness of taxing work: you can merge income tax and national insurance.”
The late Chancellor, Nigel Lawson—the Prime Minister’s hero—warned that merging them would
“destroy the contributory principle and create many losers, especially among the elderly.”
In fact, a retired pensioner with an average occupational pension income of £198 a week would pay an additional £738 a year in tax. Is the reason that the Conservatives will not come clean not that they are planning to pick pensioners’ pockets to fund the abolition of national insurance?

Jeremy Hunt: If the right hon. Lady listened to my comments carefully, and I do not always give her credit for that, she would know that our policy is to abolish employees’ national insurance, and that means we want to bring it down to zero. If Labour’s strategy is to win the election by frightening pensioners with fake news stories, I would just say that Britain deserves better.

Therese Coffey: The taskforce on nature-related financial disclosures came out with its framework last year. I would like an update on where we are with the International Sustainability Standards Board approach, because just as it has been a huge success for companies and for UK plc to switch to the recommendations of the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosure, it is vital for our planet that we also start to have the TNFD framework as standard right across the board.

Bim Afolami: My right hon. Friend is right that this issue is critical. I am pleased that the ISSB recently announced its intention to commence a research project on a nature thematic standard, carefully considering the TNFD’s recommendations. His Majesty’s Government have established a formal mechanism to assess the ISSB standards for suitability for the UK to ensure that with a general sustainability standard, and more specifically with a climate sustainability standard, we are doing the right thing for the UK. The Government will publish an implementation update on sustainability disclosure requirements shortly to provide further information for industry—watch this space.

Richard Burgon: We have all seen it: the richest Prime Minister in history has spent the weekend telling the public that his plan is working. Well, it is not working for people in Leeds East, whose taxes are going through the roof while our public services are on their knees. Would a better plan  not be to go after the tax dodgers, rather than making ordinary people pay the price for this Government’s abject failures?

Nigel Huddleston: I have to say that I find this hypocrisy astounding. First, if the Opposition objected to the national insurance cuts, why did the Leader of the Opposition say that he supported them? If the Opposition are so keen on abolishing tax dodging, why did they not support our Finance Bill, which had measures in place to do just that? They did not support it; they abstained on it.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Bank of England has said that quantitative tightening is not an official part of its monetary policy targeting, yet it is at risk of costing, fiscally, £179 billion in losses underwritten by the Treasury. That is having a major effect on the fiscal situation of the country. Will His Majesty’s Government encourage the Bank of England to hold these bonds to maturity, taking the carry cost rather than taking the hit from selling them in the market and crystallising an enormous loss?

Bim Afolami: In relation to the asset purchase facility and how that has worked over recent years, it is not His Majesty’s Government’s—or indeed the Treasury’s—intention to change the way in which that works with the Bank of England, but as with all measures, the Chancellor keeps everything under close review.

Kerry McCarthy: According to the Bank of England, a typical family remortgaging this year will pay £240 a year more in mortgage payments. Does the Chancellor accept that even if the Bank cuts rates, those homeowners will still be paying a penalty because the Government crashed the economy?

Jeremy Hunt: What I would say to those families is that the most damaging thing of all is to have inflation at 11%. Now we have reduced it to 3.2%, and indeed we expect it to go lower. Interest rates are also starting to fall. If the hon. Member is worried about families in her constituency, she might be extremely worried by the shadow Chancellor saying that if interest rates fall, it is somehow not a big deal. It really is.

David Mundell: May I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to revisit his decision to change the tax arrangements of furnished holiday lets in rural constituencies such as my own? Those businesses make an important contribution to the local economy, provide jobs and enhance the tourism offering. Indeed, they stop depopulation rather than adding to it. His decision is creating much concern among those who operate such businesses.

Nigel Huddleston: We recognise the important role that FHLs play in the tourism ecosystem right across the country. The problem was that there was not a level playing field with long-term lets. We are making sure that there will continue to be tax incentives and benefits from such letting, but they need to be on par with short-term and long-term lets.

Carla Lockhart: The consistently high price of fuel is making drivers dig deep just to go about their daily business. With a rise of 10p reported since the start of the year and the average cost of filling a family car now £82.50, what efforts will the Government make to help those people in my rural constituency and across the United Kingdom who have little or no access to public transport and are dependent on their vehicles for work and family life?

Gareth Davies: The hon. Member is entirely right. That is why we froze fuel duty at the last fiscal event: a measure that costs £6.5 billion and will save the average driver £50.

Tobias Ellwood: May I place on record my thanks to the Chancellor, who in his Budget devoted funds to Bournemouth for a police violence reduction unit? Does he agree that these units have a track record up and down the country of tackling knife crime by not just seeing extra police on the frontline, but engaging with schools to ensure that youths and students understand the folly of carrying a knife in the first place?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: violence reduction units reduce crime and save lives. I want to thank him, because he was one of the first colleagues who, ahead of the Budget, brought to my attention how impressive the results are. As a result, I was able to make it a national policy in the Budget.

Andrew Gwynne: Many of those campaigning for justice in the contaminated blood scandal will have been encouraged by the reporting in  over the weekend. Given that time is of the essence, will the Chancellor please indicate by which date the promises will be fulfilled?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the Government are taking this issue very seriously, and we completely understand that speed is of the essence. It is now only a matter of days before the report will be published; we have always said that we want to publish our response very quickly after that and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not hang around.

Nicholas Fletcher: The best way for a business to thrive and for customers to receive a great service is for companies to employ individuals on merit. Does the Chancellor agree that the recent overreach by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority regarding their equality, diversity and inclusion policies is a step too far, and that it is inevitable that those policies will have a negative effect on us all?

Bim Afolami: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that the FCA bears in mind that it should not be distracted from its core focus on conduct and regulation by things that are more marginal for the people and businesses it oversees. I urge the FCA to take into account the representations made by my hon. Friend and by industry in that regard and many others.

Jeff Smith: The Chancellor recently claimed that £100,000 a year is not a huge salary. Does he realise how out of touch that sounds to families in my constituency who are working hard, earning much less than that and really struggling because they are paying 25% more for their weekly shop than they were two years ago, and whose mortgages soared after the Tories crashed the economy?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has taken my comments out of context. I will tell him what is really out of touch: the shadow Chancellor saying it is not a big deal if inflation falls.

Ian Levy: Cramlington has a world-leading pharmaceutical company, Organon, which employs 700 people and produces medicine for the UK market as well as abroad, with a particular focus on women’s health. Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor please meet me to discuss the impact on pharmaceutical investment?

Gareth Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The pharmaceutical industry is worth some £14 billion to our economy. I am pleased to tell him that the industry has seen a twelvefold increase in equity financing in just the past decade, and I would be pleased to meet him to discuss that further.

Wera Hobhouse: Soaring rent costs are the biggest reason why my constituents in Bath are struggling. The average monthly rent in Bath and north-east Somerset has risen by more than £200 in the past three years. What support will the Government give to people who rent in the private sector?

Jeremy Hunt: That is why we need to build more houses. The hon. Lady will be reassured to know that we are building record numbers of houses—in fact, more in the last year than in any single year under the previous Labour Government.

Andrew Rosindell: I would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to know that high business rates are having a devastating effect on small and medium-sized businesses in historic market towns, such as Romford, that are large retail centres. As the Government are business friendly, will he please look at ways to reduce the burden of business rates on local businesses in constituencies like mine?

Jeremy Hunt: May I say what a pleasure it is to be asked a question by my hon. Friend? I think this is the first time it has happened since he has been back. There is no more formidable a champion for Romford. He speaks about business rates, and we have indeed been doing what we can to bring them down at every fiscal event.

Jim Shannon: What steps have been taken to support pensioners to know what benefits they are possibly entitled to? I understand that 1.4 million people access pension credit, but a great many more are entitled to it.

Laura Trott: The hon. Gentleman will know that this is an issue that is close to my heart, as a former Pensions Minister. We did a huge amount of work to increase the uptake of pension credit. I know that this matters a lot to Members, and work is being done in everyone’s constituency, including the hon. Gentleman’s.

Jeremy Quin: The lifetime ISA is a positive instrument, but I understand that under its terms there are circumstances under which savers lose not only the benefits of the ISA but also part of their capital investment. That does not seem right; will the Minister please meet me to discuss it?

Bim Afolami: I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss the lifetime ISA, which is a fantastic product brought in by this Government to help young people to get on the housing ladder. I am happy to meet him to discuss ways in which we can make it more accessible for more people in more circumstances.

Tulip Siddiq: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is it related to Treasury questions?

Tulip Siddiq: Yes. In his response to me, the Exchequer Secretary said, “Any area that loses bank branches is entitled to get a banking hub”, but I have numerous   examples of towns that lost bank branches, applied for a banking hub and then had their application rejected. Please could you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how I can get some clarity on this matter and what the Minister said about “any area that loses bank branches”?

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, we cannot continue the debate. The hon. Lady has certainly put her point on the record. I do not think this will be the end of it; she knows how to carry it on through the usual channels, which I expect she will use, no doubt starting with the Table Office.

Debbie Abrahams: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Chancellor, in answer to my question, said that economic inequalities actually increased under the previous Labour Administration. A House of Commons Library publication released last month shows that that is categorically not the case. Would he like to take this opportunity to correct the record?

Lindsay Hoyle: I believe the Chancellor would.

Jeremy Hunt: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Lady may have misunderstood me. What I said was that economic inequality had fallen since the last Labour Government.

War in Gaza

David Lammy: (Urgent Question): To ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the war in Gaza.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his urgent question.
We want to see an end to the fighting as soon as possible. Well over six months since Hamas’s terror attack against Israel, it is appalling that the hostages are still being held. Very many civilians are also dying in Gaza, and this weekend Hamas rockets killed four Israeli Defence Forces soldiers and injured others. As we have said, the fastest way to end the conflict is to secure a deal that gets the hostages out and allows for a pause in the fighting in Gaza. We must then turn that pause into a sustainable, permanent ceasefire.
Regarding the situation in Rafah, our position has been consistent. We are deeply concerned about the prospect of a military incursion, given the number of civilians who are sheltering there and the importance of that entry point for aid. Entry points for humanitarian aid, including Kerem Shalom, must be reopened quickly to allow aid in. Israel must facilitate immediate, uninterrupted humanitarian access in the south, especially the entry of fuel, and ensure the protection of civilians and safe passage for those who wish to leave Rafah. As yet, we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians.
We are, of course, following closely the latest developments on the hostage talks. At this stage, while events are still shifting, I cannot—as the House will understand—provide a detailed running commentary. As the British Government have said, we want to see a deal agreed that would ensure the release of hostages and a pause in the fighting. A generous offer was on the table last week, proposed by Egypt and accepted by Israel. We need to see Hamas accept a viable deal and we can start building the momentum towards a permanent sustained ceasefire.
In parallel, we continue to push as hard as we can to get much-needed aid into Gaza via vital land routes, alongside sea and air, to alleviate the suffering. Israel has now committed to significant steps to increase the amount of aid getting into Gaza. We now need to see that turned into action to ensure that aid actually gets over the border, and that it is safely and properly distributed. We look to Israel to meet its commitments to flood Gaza with aid.
Ultimately, we need a long-term solution to this crisis. This means the release of all hostages; Hamas’s rule dismantled; their ability to attack Israel removed; a new Palestinian Government for the west bank and Gaza; and a political horizon to a two-state solution. Israelis and Palestinians should be able to live together side by side, in peace and security. This is our goal. We will continue working tirelessly to achieve it.

David Lammy: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I have to say that it is extraordinary that the Government did not come forward with a statement today. This is a profoundly concerning moment  in this awful war. Ceasefire negotiations appear to be going backwards. Today the war is not just continuing, but escalating.
Labour has been clear for months that we oppose an offensive in Rafah, which risks catastrophic consequences. The United States has said that it would be a disaster, the European Union has said that the world must prevent it, and the United Nations Security Council has called for an immediate ceasefire. Benjamin Netanyahu is ignoring the warnings of Israel’s allies and partners, the United Kingdom included.
So can the Minister tell me what the consequences will be? We are already seeing the consequences for civilians: airstrikes in densely packed areas; the Rafah crossing—as well as Kerem Shalom, shamelessly attacked by Hamas—now closed; aid reportedly being blocked; and northern Gaza in full-blown famine. Some 1.4 million people are sheltering in Rafah, many of them ordered to go there by the IDF in the first place. Half the children in Gaza are in Rafah. Where can they go to be safe? The French Government said yesterday that the forced displacement of any civilian population is a war crime. Does the Minister agree?
Hamas are a terrorist organisation and their cowardly tactics are reprehensible, but that does not change Israel’s obligation to follow the rules of war, or the Government’s obligations on arms exports, so can the Minister say why he thinks that an attack on Rafah does not present a clear risk of a serious breach of international humanitarian law? Can he also confirm whether he has received any assessment—not legal advice, but any assessment or policy advice—from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials that the threshold has already been met? Now more than ever, we need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and unimpeded aid to Gaza.

Andrew Mitchell: The shadow Foreign Secretary has set out in eloquent terms what is effectively the policy of the Government and the entire House. He chided the Government for not offering a statement today, but I suggest that the Government have not been slow in coming to the House with frequent statements and responses to urgent questions, and we will of course continue to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Government’s discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the entire Government have been very clear about our advice to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I have set it out repeatedly in the House. When I last answered questions from the right hon. Gentleman here, I made very clear our position on Rafah as well. He asked about the consequences and how we deal with those. Britain and our allies, through the United Nations—and I remind him that Britain was pivotal in securing Security Council resolutions 2720 and 2728—are working together to try to improve what is a terrible situation, and we will continue to do just that with, I hope, the support of the whole House.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Alicia Kearns: I welcome the efforts made by the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East,  who have been in and out of the middle east many times over the past two weeks in order to hear from our allies. However, as we see the launch of the Rafah offensive, what reassurances have been received that aid access and, above all, aid workers will be protected? We cannot see the entire aid industry flee from Rafah junction, as is currently being predicted. There is speculation about Al-Mawasi as a safe zone for civilians, but there is no infrastructure in what is essentially a desert, and it was not safe on the last occasion when, as we saw, the British charity Medical Aid for Palestinians was bombed—on which we have still had no answer. Finally, have we had any proof of life for those Israeli citizens who have now been held for seven months? For many, there has been no proof of life since at least Day 20. What are we doing to push for that proof of life, which families so desperately need?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that last point. We do seek proof of life. The families to whom she refers are desperate for information, but that information has not been forthcoming. We are deeply concerned about the humanitarian position in Rafah. Any plan would have to respect international humanitarian law, and we have yet to see such a plan. The immediate priority, as I set out in my opening remarks, must be a humanitarian pause in the fighting. As the House well knows, such a pause would allow us, potentially, to get the hostages out, but also to get aid into Gaza.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Brendan O'Hara: A week ago from that Dispatch Box, the Minister said:
“Given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, it is not easy to see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 141.]
Despite repeated appeals for Israel not to attack Rafah, just hours after the dashed hopes of a ceasefire, that offensive is happening. Is this the breach of international humanitarian law you referred to last week, and will that breach immediately end UK sales of arms to Israel? Or is this yet another example of the UK declaring a red line only for Israel to completely ignore it without condemnation or consequence? We know how this plays out, Minister. You plead with them, they ignore you, they do what they want and you find excuses for them. A blind eye will be turned to the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and while the UK Government call for more aid to the survivors, they will continue to issue arms export licences. That has been the pattern of behaviour for seven months. Can we expect anything different now?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, he will know that we are working flat out in these very difficult circumstances to achieve something different, and we will continue to do so. He quoted what I said the last time I was at the Dispatch Box, and I would point out that the words I have used today, in answering the same question, are virtually exactly the same. I have made it clear that there would have to be a plan that  respected international humanitarian law, and we have not yet seen such a plan. That is entirely consistent with what I said before.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the sale of arms. The Foreign Secretary announced on 9 April that the British position with regard to export licences is unchanged. We do not publish the Government’s legal advice, but we always act in accordance with it. I would point out that we publish data on export licensing decisions transparently and on a quarterly basis.

Suella Braverman: Yesterday I met survivors of the Nova festival massacre—people who had fought singlehandedly for hours in Israel on 7 October against brutal Hamas terrorists. We all want peace, and we all want to see the end of civilian fatalities, but sometimes countries must fight for peace. Israel has a right to defend herself and a duty to protect her people from the brutal terrorist cult of Hamas. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will maintain steadfast and resolute support for Israel as she finishes the job of eliminating Hamas from Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: I am very pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend had the chance to meet those survivors yesterday, so that she can share with the House the hideous circumstances that they suffered. She makes it clear that Israel has the right of self-defence, and she set out eloquently why that is the case. But Israel must also abide by international humanitarian law.

John Martin McDonnell: I say to the Minister, if I may, “You’re better than this.” We all condemn Hamas’s attack and we all want to see the hostages released, but we are on the edge of witnessing a massacre, a mass murder of innocent men, women and children at the behest of fanatical zealots in the Israeli Cabinet. We need this Government to lead an international exercise to prevent this attack now. One way to prevent it is to make it clear to Netanyahu that if it goes ahead, this Government will pursue him as a war criminal at the international courts.

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Government are working with their allies, with the powers in the region and through the United Nations precisely to ensure that that does not happen. He also knows that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and other Ministers who are in close contact with the Israeli Government have made it absolutely clear what the effects of a military campaign conducted within the small confines of Rafah, where so many people are kettled, would be. I have made very clear from this Dispatch Box the view of the Government in that respect.

Michael Ellis: A couple of days ago, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, an Israeli commander reminded his men that on that day 80 years ago, the Nazis led Jews to the ovens for the sole crime of being Jewish. On 7 October, at dawn on a public holiday, Hamas and their supporters invaded Israel and murdered 1,200 more Jewish people, including children, and raped, dismembered and tortured people—and yes, they put one baby, alive, in an oven to murder it. They took dozens of hostages, and still have many in savage confinement of a medieval nature.
Many voices put pressure on Israel to do what they believe Israel should do. Does the Minister agree that more pressure needs to be put on Hamas to do what they should do—what any civilised human being would call for—which is to release the hostages and stop attacking aid points? One such aid point was attacked at the weekend, killing four Israeli soldiers—an aid point that, by the way, British aid comes through. They are silent about that, with every focus on Israel and none on Hamas.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. I want to emphasise to him, but also to the House, that the hostages are not an afterthought. They are at the very centre of this—there are more than 130, including women and children, and a holocaust survivor. The Government are trying to strike a balance. There is an urgent requirement for a pause in all the fighting to enable aid to get in and to negotiate the hostages out, which might then lead, as a process, to a sustainable ceasefire, which is what we are trying to achieve.

Margaret Hodge: I think we all want an immediate ceasefire, and as we see the start of the destruction of Rafah and the impact that it will have on the civilian population, we are horrified. I want to ask the Minister a practical question that might get us a step further. How optimistic is he that a sufficient number of hostages will be released to ensure that agreement between the two sides can be reached and that Israel will then accept an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady, who speaks with authority and understanding on these matters, will know that the question she has asked me is at the heart of the negotiations, which still continue, and which we very much hope will be successful. As I have said before, I cannot give the House a running commentary on those negotiations, but I can assure her that the logic she brings to this debate does inform the Government’s support for getting a resolution to those negotiations.

Kit Malthouse: Over the past few months, Members from all parts of the House have questioned the Deputy Foreign Secretary on the notion of consequences, and we have heard that again today. He is an experienced Minister, so he knows that every equivocation, every hesitation and every set of diplomatic niceties has led us to this calamitous moment for the hostages, for the Palestinian people and for the interests of both peoples in the long term. On 7 April, the Foreign Secretary said that support for Israel was not unconditional. I shall ask the question in a different way: is there any red line? Is there anything the Israeli Government could do that would so appal this Government that they would feel the need to act? If so, what is it?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend talks about the calamitous situation that we have reached, and no one in the House will forget that it started on 7 October with the brutal events that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Sir Michael Ellis) just described. My right hon. Friend asks me a rhetorical question, but the evidence will show that the Government have done everything we possibly can to try to alleviate  the situation, sometimes unpopularly, and that our logic was accepted at the United Nations in the two Security Council resolutions that I mentioned.

Richard Foord: The Israeli Opposition leader Yair Lapid said at the weekend:
“A government that wants to return the abductees”
would be
“sending the teams to Cairo, not…crushing the hearts of the families.”
Lapid is right, but it is not only the hearts of the hostages’ families that are being crushed; it is those of the Palestinians who want nothing to do with Hamas terrorists. Many of them are being chased around the Gaza strip. The UK rightly defends Israel from the threat of attack by Iran, but will the British Government also suspend arms exports to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he will have seen that both sides have sent teams to Cairo, and we await developments on that with a degree of hope and optimism. On his second point, I have made it clear to the House where the Government stand on arms exports. We follow the legal advice—we do not publish it, in accordance with precedent—and we will continue to do so.

Mark Logan: Members have said that the situation in Rafah needs to come to an end, but what needs to come to an end is the fighting. UNICEF has said today that Rafah is a city of children, and we should not be dancing around the issue or playing with words as though it were a game of Scrabble. We should call this what it is and call for an immediate ceasefire. Families of hostages want the fighting to end now, and my constituents in Bolton demand that it does. The international community is demanding an immediate stop. We are one of the most influential countries on the conflict, so will the United Kingdom call for an immediate end to the fighting?

Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for keeping in touch with me on issues that are brought to his attention by his constituents. As he knows, it is exactly the Government’s policy to try to achieve that pause, which can then lead to a sustainable ceasefire. We will continue to do everything we can to achieve that.

Julie Elliott: What is the Government’s plan to get aid into Gaza now that both Rafah and Kerem Shalom are inaccessible? Even if they were accessible, with an invasion now started there would be no way to distribute aid. What is the Government’s plan to get aid in to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Palestinian people?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is right to identify that yesterday, Rafah and Kerem Shalom were shut with no aid able to get in. That is a matter of immense concern to the Government. She will know that as well as trying to get aid in ourselves by road transport, we have been a leading nation in assisting with the maritime route and with airdrops. Some 11 airdrops have been made, 10 of them by the Royal Air Force.

Therese Coffey: Constituents are understandably devastated by what is happening in Gaza right now, which is desperate for those on both sides. I am conscious of what the Minister has just said about aid being distributed, but will he ensure that all the resources possible are there to enable us to carry on with maritime delivery and airdrops? Does he agree that ultimately, it is in Hamas’s hands to return the hostages and remove any excuse for further actions in Gaza by Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: We will certainly continue to boost the maritime efforts, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, are ongoing using both British military assets and our stores in the region, particularly in Cyprus, as well as technology for clearing the kit that is available there. We will continue to do everything we can in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, as we have been, to achieve greater entry of aid into Gaza.

Clive Betts: The real concern now is that Netanyahu has one objective, which is to raze Gaza to the ground. That is what he is intent on doing, and it will include Rafah. This Government, along with all other western Governments, have told the Israelis that they must not go into Rafah. I ask the Minister once again: what are the consequences if they do? Will it be a slap on the wrist and a “Don’t do it again”, or is serious consideration being given to banning the sale of arms and to sanctioning individuals and the Israeli Government collectively? What are the Government going to do? Are they going to do anything at all?

Andrew Mitchell: I have made it very clear what the Government are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman has outlined what Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying, but there are many different voices in Israel, as we have seen this weekend, including significant demonstrations in support of the policy of getting the hostages back. Britain is doing everything it can to help achieve that.

James Sunderland: For me, the defining feature of this appalling tragedy in Gaza is that the civilian population is trapped between the oppression of an appalling terrorist organisation and an appalling military onslaught. Given the increasing compression of that population within Rafah, in a much smaller geographical area, the need for precision, restraint and proportionality from the Israelis is ever more acute. Will the Minister please assure the House that he is doing everything possible to convince the Israelis of the need to preserve the sanctity of human life?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend will know that the Government have repeatedly underlined the importance of Israel abiding by international humanitarian law. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have underlined that point in their frequent contacts.

Imran Hussain: Despite the blatant disregard that we have seen for international law over the last few weeks, the international community has warned that the Israeli ground offensive in Rafah will be a red line. Even the Deputy Foreign Secretary told this House last week that he could not
“see how such an offensive could be compliant with international humanitarian law”.—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 140-41.]
With Israeli troops now ready to move into the world’s largest and most densely populated refugee camp, where 1.4 million people sit starving and fearful for the lives of their children, I have to ask the Minister just why he did not come to the House today to announce a strong UK response that immediately supports the International Criminal Court’s war crimes investigation and immediately ends arms sales to Israel.
Frankly, it is shameful that the Government have again come to the House with nothing. Will the Minister please answer the question that we have all come to hear answered? What are the UK Government doing to stop the bloodshed and the massacre that are about to happen hours from now in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, there is no difference between what I have said today and the response I gave on the last occasion I was at the Dispatch Box, to which he refers. He sets out, in eloquent tones, the nature of the problem we face, but he must recognise that Britain, along with a large number of regional powers, the international community and the UN, is trying to stop the very position he sets out.

Andrew Percy: Seven months ago today, many of us began receiving the most alarming messages from friends and/or family in Israel. By the end of that day, every red line of international law had been breached by the monstrous Palestinian terrorists who raped countless women, murdered 1,200 people and took hundreds of innocent people hostage.
Within hours, people in this country, and some pro-Palestinian activists, were on the streets cheering what happened that day. Since then, we have seen the dehumanisation of Jews through the dehumanisation of Israel. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” has been dusted off and every antisemitic trope has been trotted out. Some people in this House, whom we would have expected to be allies when it comes to gender-based violence, have had little or nothing to say about the horrors of that day.
Now, we hear calls for Israel to be denied the right to defend itself, while arms continue to flow to Hamas from Iran and North Korea. There is nothing kind or compassionate about that message. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary confirm to me that any ceasefire, which we all want because we all want this tragedy to end, will include the complete removal of Hamas from governance in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right in what he says. The rightful aim of defeating Hamas will not be achieved by allowing a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, as I am sure he would agree. He mentions gender-based violence; he will recognise that the Government have supplied funding particularly to try to tackle aspects of that, where we are able to make a contribution and have some impact. On what he says about the nature of some of what has been said in this House and outside, the Government make it very clear that we are absolutely opposed to antisemitism and Islamophobia in all their forms.

Beth Winter: Last October, the Israeli Defence Minister disgracefully described the Palestinian people as “animals”, and that is exactly how Israel has treated them, forcibly displacing men, women,  and children from the north to the south of Gaza and now forcibly displacing people again, slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians and creating famine conditions. Now there is the risk of a massacre. What we are witnessing this week is a clear escalation of Israel’s total disregard for civilian life and international law. We need an immediate ceasefire, but will the Minister finally agree to impose stringent sanctions on Israel, not simply on individual settlers, by ending support for its military capability in Gaza, suspending arms export licences and offering support for ICJ and ICC processes investigating Israel’s criminal actions? Where is our humanity?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Emotions are running high. I want to get everybody in, but I am concerned that we will not achieve it at this rate. Please can we help each other?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady sets out in lurid terms the issues we face and the problems the entire international community is trying to address—

Beth Winter: indicated dissent.

Andrew Mitchell: She shakes her head, but the fact is that the Government are doing everything they can, as we have set out—the Foreign Secretary has set it out, the Prime Minister has set it out and I have set it out from this Dispatch Box—to try to effect the change that she and I so desperately wish to see.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Minister’s statement with regard to the United Kingdom supporting the people of Gaza with humanitarian aid. The Minister knows that I have written to the Foreign Secretary asking that the United Kingdom hosts an international donors conference for Palestine, as it did with the international Friends of Syria group, which was the largest convening of humanitarian donors at a conference held in the United Kingdom. I understand that the Foreign Secretary thought that it was a good idea, so where is the UK in leading the way in setting up an international donors conference for Palestine?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to identify a political horizon that is constructive; when this ghastly fighting is over, we hope that people will lift their eyes to a political horizon. Britain is doing a lot of work to try to support that opportunity when it comes, and at that point there may well be a role for Britain in the international community to convene something of that sort.

Chris Law: The invasion of Rafah by the Israeli army comes alongside further discoveries of more than 390 bodies in mass graves at the al-Shifa and Nasser hospitals, with the UN confirming evidence of torture, summary executions and instances of people being buried alive and others buried with intravenous needles still in their arms. At the most recent Foreign Office questions, the Deputy Foreign Secretary said that it would be hard to see how an invasion of Rafah would not be in breach of international humanitarian law. Given what I have just outlined, do the UK Government finally consider the invasion of Rafah to be a breach of international humanitarian law—yes or no?

Andrew Mitchell: Alas, such questions are not susceptible to yes or no answers. We have made absolutely clear our view about an invasion of Rafah. The full reality of the specific incidents the hon. Gentleman mentions is not clear. We need to recognise, as the British Government have made clear, that full and transparent investigations of those matters is required.

Theresa Villiers: Hamas have apparently said to mediators that they do not have 33 living hostages who fall into the categories of women, children, elderly and sick. That is an appalling body blow for the relatives of those held captive in Gaza for more than 200 days. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to acknowledge Israel’s right to take military action to get those people home?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the awful plight of the hostages, as she has done repeatedly in this House. She is also right to make it clear that, under international law, Israel has the right to self-defence and to take proportionate action to recover hostages.

Steve McCabe: Like many others, I pray that pressure from this House and elsewhere can bring this conflict to an end, but we all know that that will require agreement on an Arab-led body to maintain peace, order and security. How close are we to that agreement?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to try to lift people’s eyes to the political horizon so that from this intolerable misery can come hope for the future. A great deal of work is going on to pinpoint and augment the sinews of such a political future. The Foreign Secretary has been in the region repeatedly—especially on the west bank and in Ramallah. We will continue to do everything we can to plan for that, alongside trying to resolve the desperate situation in Rafah, on which I have tried to set out to the House what Britain is doing.

Tobias Ellwood: The Deputy Foreign Secretary reminds us that we are now in the seventh month. Talks are not making progress, the hostages still have not been released and border crossings are closing; we are entering another dark chapter in this terrible conflict. The UN World Food Programme warns of a full-blown famine unless more aid can be delivered. This House is asking what we can do, so will the Deputy Foreign Secretary update us on the building of that new maritime port off Gaza? That is something that the international community can control, of which we can have full stakeholder ownership. Once it is operational, will British troops be involved in aid delivery?

Andrew Mitchell: In respect of my right hon. Friend’s final point, we will have to see what is required. Securing the temporary pier off the coast of Gaza is a way of getting additional aid in swiftly. He will know that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Cardigan Bay is in the area, and is effectively the command post for this maritime effort. Britain is also thoroughly involved, just as it is from the air and from land, in detail in the maritime effort.

Afzal Khan: The UK Government have long warned Israel that an invasion of Rafah must not happen. Civilian lives must be protected and aid must enter Gaza. Prime Minister Netanyahu has shown once again that he is not listening to his allies or the ICJ, and that he is hellbent on turning the whole of Gaza into a graveyard. Will the UK Government urgently impose a full arms embargo on Israel, which is the only thing the UK can do to try to stop the starvation and potential genocide of those left in Rafah?

Andrew Mitchell: The early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question set out what we are all trying to address. On an arms embargo, he will know that the amount of arms that Britain supplies is negligible. Equally, we operate an arms sales regime that is strictly governed by the rules that I have previously set out to the House. We act in line with the legal advice we receive, and we will continue to do so.

Tom Hunt: Of course I am greatly concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza right now, but I am also greatly concerned that nothing happens that gives Hamas an increased foothold in Gaza and puts them in a position to inflict more evil and misery, like that we saw on 7 October. I am also concerned that some of the proposed ceasefire agreements seem to involve releasing hundreds of Hamas terrorists and do not involve all of the hostages being released. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary give me a commitment that we will intensify plans for a Hamas-free Gaza, so that innocent people in Gaza can look forward with hope to a future of peace?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Hamas can have no role in Gaza in the future. Much of the work we are doing in that respect is designed to help to build up the Palestinian Authority, so that it can be involved in governing both the west bank and Gaza, as soon as the time is right.

George Galloway: The Deputy Foreign Secretary’s answers today are virtually identical to those he gave, including to me, last Tuesday. The situation has escalated, but the Government’s response remains the same. There are 600,000 child hostages in Rafah alone. There is no proof of life from them, but millions of our people are watching on their phones today the proof of death and mutilation of many of them. The Government say they are doing everything they can, but they are not. You could now stop sending weapons to the people who are raining down this death and misery, and the Labour party could ask you to do that, but did not.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member says “you”, but it is not me who is responsible.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman says that the answers I gave to him and others last Tuesday are the same. Those answers reflect, in so far as the parameters of the situation are the same, the fact that we are pursuing long-term policies designed to tackle the evils that have been set out so clearly this afternoon in the House. He also makes a point about the number of children who are denied food and medicine in Rafah. He will know that through medical aid and the British contribution,  not least through a field hospital, Britain has been careful to ensure that where we can bring medical help, particularly to children, we are doing so.

Bob Blackman: The 130-plus hostages have now been held for 214 days, in barbaric conditions, subject to rape and torture, and denied medical access from the International Red Cross. The sad reality is that Israel put a deal on the table that could have led to there being a ceasefire right now, in return for the release of some—not all—of the hostages and of Palestinian prisoners who have been convicted in courts of law. Secretary Blinken described that as an “extraordinarily generous” offer, yet Hamas refuse to accept it. Does my right hon. Friend take the view that Hamas have it in their power to accept the position of a ceasefire, so that the violence and war can come to an end naturally as a result?

Andrew Mitchell: The point that my hon. Friend makes, which has been echoed in different ways across the House, is that we must ensure we do everything we can to make certain that the negotiations that are taking place at the moment in Cairo make progress and are successful. That is what everyone should be hoping can be achieved tonight.

Jess Phillips: What I think the Deputy Foreign Secretary has been saying to us today is that we have not seen a credible plan for evacuation from Rafah, and that there is currently an incursion into Rafah. If I add those two things up, what he is saying, between the lines, is that Israel has currently breached the rule that the UK has set. I do not think he wants to say it here, but that is what I am hearing. If there is no credible plan to move those people and the attack is ongoing, when can we expect, if not today, an update from the Dispatch Box on the UK’s position towards Israel, arms sales and other things that have been mentioned?

Andrew Mitchell: I have given the hon. Lady the update from the Dispatch Box, in so far as there is an update to give. She asks me about the words that we are using in respect of Rafah. I have made it clear that we have not seen a credible plan for military action in Rafah so far, so we are not able to judge whether it would be in accordance with international humanitarian law, and that is the point that I have been making to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Israel is our friend and ally, but that does not stop us questioning its actions. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Foreign Secretary says that he wants to see much more aid getting into Gaza. The actions in Gaza over the weekend have only made those miles-long queues of lorries even greater. Air and sea drops are difficult. Will he today, on behalf of the Government, appeal to our allies to allow those in those miles-long queues in Rafah to rapidly go into Gaza and relieve the suffering of the people there?

Andrew Mitchell: We continually appeal for more aid getting in by road. We have made arrangements for maritime entry, and entry from the air, but getting aid in through entry points on the road system is, by miles, the best way. I said at the outset of my remarks that we were  very concerned indeed about the fact that no aid got in through Rafah or Kerem Shalom yesterday. We are doing everything we can, as we have been since the start of this crisis, to ensure that more aid is getting in, and we will continue to do so.

Sammy Wilson: The pro-Hamas network of the press, politicians and protesters is becoming increasingly hysterical in its efforts to stop Israel pursuing those who carried out the pogrom of murder, rape, torture and hostage-taking last October. Does the Minister accept that if there is to be long-term peace in the middle east, we must continue to support Israel—in its battle against Hamas, in defending itself, and in pursuing those who cynically hide behind innocent civilians today, and tomorrow use their death as a propaganda weapon?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that Israel has the right to self-defence, but I am sure that he would accept that it must be exercised within international humanitarian law.

Dawn Butler: Minister, what does “finish the job” mean, with 40,000 people dead, many of whom are children? Is it finished when every single man, woman, child and baby is dead in Gaza? Is that what “finish the job” means? The Government said that the invasion of Rafah would not comply with international law. The Minister says that we do not supply that many arms to Israel, but if we were to stop even that supply, would it not send the message that our Government abide by, and believe in the importance of, international law?

Andrew Mitchell: I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that although the Government do not publish the legal advice that they receive, they always act in accordance with it.

Liz Saville-Roberts: My constituent Emily Fares has family in Gaza. Here is her message:
“We heard from our family yesterday, half of them have now fled Rafah after threatening evacuation orders fell from the sky. When we spoke to them they did not know where they were going—they mentioned al-Mawasi, but there is no building for them to stay, it is not safe there. There are no food provisions there. There is nowhere to go to the toilet, nowhere to wash. They are now utterly destitute.”
Forced displacement is a war crime. The Minister’s Government have it in their power to set up a scheme for people desperate to join family in the UK. If not now, when?

Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Lady sets out the heart-rending reports that she has received. That is why the Government, with as much vigour and co-operation with our allies as possible, are trying to do the things that I have set out.

Florence Eshalomi: The initial Israeli offence in Rafah began last night, and it has been described as “limited”. An operation is not limited if it results in the evacuation and forced displacement of around 100,000 people. An operation is not limited if it results in all crossings being closed, and humanitarian aid being completely halted. The House cannot downplay  the significance of what is happening. The Minister said that the Government are doing everything they can, but will he make it clear from the Dispatch Box that the Government do not support this offensive, and that there must be consequences under international law if it goes ahead?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government have made it absolutely clear that we have yet to see a plan in respect of any military operations in Rafah, but we have always made it clear that any such plans must abide by international humanitarian law.

Richard Burgon: For months, the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box and told us that the Government are asking the Israeli Government to do this, or requesting that the Israeli Government do that. The harsh truth is that Israel is ignoring the UK Government, and that our Government now need to act. Words are not enough; we need action to show that there are consequences for breaching international law. The Government must act now by ending arms sales and suspending the trade talks, because if they do not do what is necessary and take action to help prevent the attack on Rafah, will the Israeli Government not see that as our Government giving them the green light to commit yet more war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have seen what the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have said, and how we are working with our allies and countries in the region to try to improve the situation. He will know, as the whole House knows, that there is no magic solution. We have to persist with the arguments and the logic that are so clearly set out in United Nations Security Council resolutions 2720 and 2728, and we will continue to do so.

Anum Qaisar: Over the past seven months, I and many other Members across this House have come to the Chamber to gain an understanding of what the red lines are for the UK Government, but it feels like there are not many. It felt like it was not a red line when babies in Gaza were removed from the wombs of their dead mothers. It felt like it was not a red line when children in Gaza looked up to the sky, not knowing whether aid or bombs were going to drop on them. Now, in Rafah, displaced refugees once again face the threat of forcible transfer, and again it does not feel like this is a red line. Given that there is precedent for halting arms sales to Israel, will the UK Government finally halt those sales? If not, can the Deputy Foreign Secretary please explain to us what cost is associated with a Palestinian life? What are the red lines? What does Benjamin Netanyahu have to do that is too much?

Andrew Mitchell: The case that the hon. Lady makes should encourage everyone—the Government, but everyone else as well—to do everything they can to bring an end to this catastrophic conflict, which is causing such pain to so many.

Khalid Mahmood: I will start as I always do: I condemn Hamas, and I think all refugees on both sides should be returned, but the attack on Rafah has started. The escalation of humanitarian disaster and catastrophe continues, in contravention of international law. There has been too  much hand-wringing and making of excuses. We have to call it what it is: we stand here while people are starving and children are dying of malnutrition, and while there is no support for civilians in the area. The case has been made for hostages to be released; what will happen when Rafah is bombed? What will happen to those Israeli hostages? This policy is doomed from the start. Will the Deputy Foreign Secretary call for a ceasefire now and move forward?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have consistently sought a pause, so that the hostages can get out and aid can get in, and have worked tirelessly, I would argue, to try to ensure that aid does get in, including by inventing new ways of trying to achieve that. He started his question by pointing out that an attack had started in Rafah, but he will also know that negotiations are proceeding in Cairo, and we must hope that those negotiations are successful as quickly as possible.

Jessica Morden: With nowhere safe for Palestinians to go, and overcrowding in places such as al-Mawasi, I ask again: where exactly do the UK Government think Palestinians displaced from eastern Rafah should go next? If the Deputy Foreign Secretary has no answer, why does the Government’s response remain the same?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have repeatedly made clear, we think that there needs to be a pause in the fighting that can, as I have expressed on numerous occasions in the House, lead to a sustainable ceasefire.

Kenny MacAskill: Is it not time to recognise that Israel’s actions are not a disproportionate response to 7 October, but in fact part of a concerted plan to make Gaza unliveable, and to extirpate the Palestinian population there, while encroaching on Palestinian territories in the occupied west bank? As a result, is it not time that we ceased arms sales, stopped being complicit in Israel’s military actions, reinstated United Nations Relief and Works Agency aid, and joined other nations in condemning this dreadful genocide?

Andrew Mitchell: As I have said to the House before, I do not think it is helpful to use terms such as “genocide”. It is important that the House recognises that the findings of the International Court of Justice have been misrepresented in that respect. Joan Donoghue, a former president of the ICJ who was still serving at the time of the preliminary decision, stated that the ICJ
“did not decide that the claim of genocide was plausible”.

Rushanara Ali: The Minister talks about a pause; the United Nations voted for a resolution calling for a ceasefire. The Minister is now talking about looking at Israeli military plans for Gaza, when the international community has thus far made it clear that there should not be an invasion of Gaza. It feels as if he is going backwards. His Government have so far failed to restore UNRWA funding, which is making the matter and the misery worse. He has failed to take action to ensure that the Government support the implementation of the ICJ’s provisional measures  and the International Criminal Court investigation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. He has a good track record, but he is failing us by taking us backwards on this important issue. When will he take action on those specific measures?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we speed up questions? Otherwise, some people will not get in.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not recognise the early part of the hon. Lady’s question, but let me assure her, as I have assured the House in the past, that we are doing everything we can to address the dreadful situation that she has so eloquently articulated.

Apsana Begum: The Minister’s reply on 17 April to my written question referred to wanting
“to see Israel take greater care to limit its operations to military targets”.
Can he confirm that he is finally aware that Israel has not limited its onslaught to military targets? Given that the Government’s own licensing criteria refer to the
“risk that the items might be used to…facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law…or serious acts of violence against women or children”,
how can continuing to arm Israel in its bombardment of Palestinian civilians possibly be justified?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady refers to a number of early incidents, which have been condemned. She will know that, in respect of each of those incidents, the Government have said that we want an independent and credible investigation and transparent conclusions, so that we know why and how those acts took place.

Liam Byrne: The Minister has said that the policy has not changed, but the facts on the ground have. Ordering the evacuation of 100,000 people is not a small operation; it is big one. He knows that the clear test for suspending arms sales is a clear risk of a breach of humanitarian law, but he has told the House this afternoon that he has no assurances that that breach is impossible because he has not seen a plan. Can he tell the House what advice he has given the Department for Business and Trade, and when, about its legal obligation to suspend arms sales now? Will he lay that out for us this afternoon, before he gives evidence to the Select Committee on Business and Trade on 21 May?

Andrew Mitchell: The position on arms sales and legal advice is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware. He knows that we always follow carefully the legal advice, although we do not publish it, and we always act in accordance with it. He will also know that, in the light of that legal advice, as the Foreign Secretary announced on 9 April, the UK position with regard to export licences remains unchanged.

Andrew Western: Gaza is bleeding and Gaza is starving. At least 34,700 people are dead, the majority of them women and children, while a man-made famine continues to take hold. How much further do things need to escalate before this Government finally take action, restore UNRWA funding and—finally—call for an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member raises the issue of UNRWA, which was also raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and I should have responded on that point. Britain is currently in a position of not owing any money to UNRWA, we have said that we are considering the Colonna report and we are waiting for the Office of Internal Oversight Services report. In due course, we will come to the House to tell it the decision we have made, but it is important to recognise that at the current time Britain is fully paid up in respect of UNRWA’s money and work.

Drew Hendry: More than 14,500 children have been killed in Gaza. Is the Minister proud that the UK continues to sell arms for use in this action?

Andrew Mitchell: I am proud that Britain is doing everything it can and that the Government are bending every sinew to try to resolve this desperate situation and to make sure that we get aid into Gaza—“flood” Gaza with aid, as the Israeli Government have promised—but also get out the hostages, whose families have suffered so much since the appalling pogrom on 7 October.

Holly Lynch: The Deputy Foreign Secretary has said that he is still waiting to see the military plans from Israel in relation to Rafah, but we are all watching the consequences of the execution of those plans, which is already under way. Part of what we have seen overnight has been the very deliberate destruction of any signage that describes the territory as Gaza, and the taking down of Palestinian flags and replacing them with Israeli flags. That is not necessary in any way to neutralise any security threat. Has he asked Israel what it is doing and why it has done that, and can he give me one example of a consequence now that this red line has been crossed?

Andrew Mitchell: We continue to make it clear to Israel that it should not in these circumstances be conducting military operations in Rafah until there is a proper plan that ensures it stands by its duties and responsibilities under international humanitarian law.

Feryal Clark: Thousands of children killed, hostages not released, Israel accused of war crimes, global outrage at Israel’s conduct and Hamas very much in being—this is how not to fight a war. Even war has rules, so given the number of civilians sheltering in Rafah, can the Minister make it clear that the UK Government do not support the Rafah offensive?

Andrew Mitchell: I have made it crystal clear where the Government stand on the issue of any Rafah offensive, and we will continue to do everything we can—as I have clearly, I hope, set out to the House—to bring about an urgent resolution of this extraordinarily difficult and catastrophic situation.

Alistair Carmichael: In recent months, Israeli forces in Gaza have been responsible for the killing of aid workers, medics and journalists, including British citizens among them, and they have been responsible for the targeting of civilian infrastructure. In these circumstances, what possible basis can there be in law for continuing to supply weapons to Israel?

Andrew Mitchell: The decisions on weapons licences are not made across the Floor of the House, nor are they made on the basis of emotion. They are made on the basis of the rules clearly set down. They are governed by the advice that we receive from lawyers, and we act in accordance with that advice.

Andrew Gwynne: The 1.4 million displaced people kettled in the south of the Gaza strip, precisely where they were told to go, are now facing mass starvation—a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding before our eyes. The Rafah offensive cannot and must not be allowed to happen. The Deputy Foreign Secretary says that he is yet to see a plan, credible or not. But a plan clearly exists if the Israeli authorities are asking 100,000 people to move. Given that he has not been clear to the House on consequences or advice from officials, if there is a breach of international law, at which point are the British Government also complicit?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government have made it clear that all countries, and Israel in this conflict, must abide by international humanitarian law. The hon. Member will be well aware that there are consequences for not abiding by international humanitarian law. Britain stands by its own international commitments in that respect, and expects others to do likewise.

Gavin Newlands: The Minister said that we have not seen a credible plan to protect civilians. That has been the case since the shameful atrocities of 7 October. Seven months on and 35,000 deaths on, we get the same lip service and the same drivel about urging Israel to follow international law, all while those on the Labour Front Bench gave them political cover. The UK shamefully continues to send arms to Israel, so if this is found to be a genocide, as I think it will be, and Netanyahu therefore a war criminal, this Government and therefore this country will be complicit, will they not?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member uses lurid language, and he should recognise what the Government are seeking to do, together with our allies in the region and internationally, and support the Government in that endeavour.

Nadia Whittome: I want the Deputy Foreign Secretary to imagine that he was in Rafah. If bombs were being dropped on his family and there was no safe place for them to go, I am sure that he would want Governments such as ours to use every available lever to stop the attacks and that he would rightly expect to receive protection. So why is it different for Palestinians? What will it take for this Government to call for an immediate ceasefire, stop arms sales to Israel and hold Netanyahu to account for his war crimes?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member is right to set out the jeopardy of the families that she describes in Rafah. That is why, on so many different fronts, the Government, along with their allies, are trying to bring about a resolution to these matters. The fact that so far we have not been fully successful in that endeavour should not deter us from continuing to try to do the right thing in those respects.

Stella Creasy: The Minister raises concerns about misrepresentation, so let us be clear: those protesting in Israel in support of the hostages were protesting against Netanyahu and his approach in Rafah. That was not the impression that the Minister gave. Those protesters and hostage families recognise, as does this House, that military action in Rafah, the man-made famine, and the displacement of 100,000 people to a place where they are trying to put tents up in rubble, is not going to lead to the release of hostages or to the two-state solution. It will probably lead to further war crimes. The UK cannot sit this out, so will the Minister at least be honest? He will not tell us why he will not suspend arms sales. Will he tell us whether our intelligence shows that to date British-made weapons and technology have been used in Rafah—yes or no?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member asks me at the beginning of her question about the extensive demonstrations that have been seen in Israel. She is right about that, which is why I said in an earlier answer that there was a plurality of views in Israel, many of which do not coincide with the views of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Helen Hayes: There is nowhere safe for people in Rafah. There is no relief for people in northern Gaza who are starving as aid is being choked off again. The situation in Gaza is intolerable and there are clear breaches of international law. None of that serves the cause of peace or hastens the release of the hostages. So I ask the Deputy Foreign Secretary, who has been short on detail today: where is the accountability and, specifically, what actions is he taking to ensure the implementation of the UN Security Council resolution requiring a ceasefire and the ICJ interim judgment?

Andrew Mitchell: I have clarified one aspect of the ICJ interim judgment, which I hope is helpful to the House. In respect of the details that the hon. Member says are lacking today, I put to her and the House that we have been very open and clear about what we expect to happen. We have argued, and we have used our money and our influence diplomatically to make progress in this matter, and we will continue to do so.

Jim McMahon: The Deputy Foreign Secretary knows that international law applies to all, or it matters to none. He speaks of the right of self-defence, and the House would agree with that, but what we have seen is far beyond self-defence. Outside of all the noise around that day, on 21 February, this House set out its position and said in black and white—no ifs, no buts—that we do not support the offensive into Rafah. That is the position of this House as we stand here today. Given what he has said, it is clear that he does not believe that an offensive into Rafah would be within international law, so is he in that circumstance content with UK-supplied arms being used in that offensive? If not, what will he do about it?

Andrew Mitchell: I have made clear where the Government stand in respect of arms sales. There is a strong precedent for how we handle these issues, which certainly was pursued by the Opposition when they were in government. We will continue to operate in precisely the way I have set out to the House in the future.

Chi Onwurah: The consequences of Israel’s Rafah offensive for the Palestinians are absolutely clear: death, destruction, starvation and disease on a scale even greater than the horrors we have already witnessed. It beggars belief that the Deputy Foreign Secretary comes to this House and cannot set out any consequences for Israel from that offensive. We are here because our constituents hold us to account for what is happening in Gaza. Why does he refuse to hold Israel to account for what is happening there?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not recognise the hon. Member’s description on the question of accountability. We have been very clear on accountability in this House to all sides in this appalling conflict, and we will continue to be so.

Fleur Anderson: The first thing that aid workers returning from Gaza talk about is the smell, because there are rivers of sewage in Gaza at the moment. The assault on Rafah means displacing people from a place with very poor sanitation to a place with no sanitation and catastrophic health outcomes. Only UNWRA can provide the sanitation needs at scale to solve this. The EU, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Japan and Sweden have all restored funding to UNWRA. The Deputy Foreign Secretary has talked about the zero sum with UNWRA, but funding needs to be fully restored and increased to stop this health and sanitation catastrophe. Why will the Government not increase funding to UNWRA?

Andrew Mitchell: I have made clear the process that the Government are going through in respect of our future commitments to UNWRA. I have also made clear that, as far as the current situation is concerned, we have fully funded and met our commitments to UNWRA, and we will make decisions when we have completed our review of the Colonna inquiry and the Office of Internal Oversight Services report from the United Nations.

Andy McDonald: The earlier comment that Israel should get on and finish the job sent a chill through this Chamber and through the homes of millions of people in our country, because they know what that means: increased numbers of children being massacred in Rafah, and I would like the Deputy Foreign Secretary to distance himself from that comment. Given the evidence in the High Court that says that the UK Government have not received any legal advice on potential violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza since 29 February, can he say what confidence he has that the £13 million-worth of aerial targeting equipment licensed for sale to Israel at the end of 2022, or the £10 million-worth of military support vehicle sales approved in May last year, will not result in the death of civilians in Rafah?

Andrew Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, any Member of the House who asks a question is responsible for what they say and how they say it. From the Dispatch Box, I have given an answer to all the questions that have been asked, whether he approves of them or not. On his second point, where, with great skill, he seeks to flush out a different answer, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the subject of arms sales.

Patrick Grady: At a recent event in Glasgow, I heard the parish priest of Gaza describe the situation as almost like hell on earth. If an individual were to escape that hell in Gaza and make their way to the UK by irregular means, because there is no humanitarian visa and no safe and legal route, is it the Government’s position that such a person should be deported to Rwanda?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman asks me a hypothetical question. When he comes up with a specific case where there is a need for a response, I will of course give it to him.

Debbie Abrahams: Like most people here, I want to see an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and access to humanitarian aid, but quite frankly I have been absolutely gobsmacked by the Deputy Foreign Secretary’s response. I see no levers that the Government are using to influence the Israeli Government’s behaviour, and I see the playing with words around what our obligations are under international law in relation to our arms licensing process. As I am reading it here from the UN, if there is a “plausible risk of genocide” we should not be supplying arms to any country. The ICJ has already ruled that there is a plausible risk of genocide, so will the Deputy Foreign Secretary stop dancing on the head of a pin and do something about this?

Andrew Mitchell: At the heart of the hon. Lady’s question is throwing the word “genocide” across the Chamber, which I do not think is helpful. If she heard what I said earlier, I was, I hope, specifically helpful to the House, in showing why what she said about the ICJ and genocide was totally inaccurate, by quoting the former president of the ICJ.

James Murray: We need an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and a massive surge of aid going to all parts of Gaza. As we have warned for months, an Israeli offensive in Rafah would be catastrophic and it must not go ahead. What are the UK Government doing to ensure there is maximum international pressure to stop the offensive from happening and to urgently secure an agreement that includes an immediate ceasefire?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that everyone wants to see a pause in the fighting, a sustainable ceasefire, aid getting in in very significant volumes and the hostages getting out. That is the policy of the British Government. We are doing everything we can, together with our allies, to achieve those aims and we will continue to do so.

Jim Shannon: Israel has a right to defend its people, a right to have the 135 hostages released, and a right to destroy the four Hamas battalions still operating, whose goal is to murder everyone who is of Israeli or Jewish origin. Following the devastating breakdown of ceasefire talks, will the Minister outline how the Government can continue to work with Israel to see the hostages released and the end to hostilities, bearing in mind that families on both sides of the Gaza conflict are grieving and want an end to bloodshed, and want a future for all their children?

Andrew Mitchell: As ever, my hon. Friend accurately, in his first three points, sets out the situation. On his final point, we will continue to work with everyone to try to achieve a resolution to these issues in the way I have set out today.

Matt Western: Having promised that Rafah would provide safe sanctuary, they now demand that the Palestinians must leave. Having frustrated humanitarian aid, they have now seized and closed the Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings. Having killed 100 journalists, they have now seized and closed down al-Jazeera in Gaza. On Israel’s Government, the former US middle east envoy, Dennis Ross, stated today:
“At a certain point, Netanyahu needs to choose Biden over Ben-Gvir, he needs to choose the hostages over Smotrich.”
Do the Government agree with him that we are at that moment?

Andrew Mitchell: We listen to everyone who comments on these matters, and we have been at a number of critical points throughout these appalling circumstances, but the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question that getting aid through entry points which are currently shut was vital, and we completely agree. We supported the maritime and air initiatives for that reason, but opening up those entry points remains the most important and most effective way of getting aid and humanitarian relief to desperate people.

Ruth Jones: Everyone in the House knows that the trickling of aid into Gaza has been a stop-start affair, but it is a critical lifeline to support Palestinian civilians none the less. Today that lifeline has been cut off yet again. May I ask whether this represents a failure of the Government’s policy, may I ask whether it amounts to a breach of international humanitarian law, and may I also ask, like everyone else, what the consequences will be?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government are always in favour of people being held to account for their actions. The hon. Lady will have gathered from what I have said at this Dispatch Box, today and on other occasions, that when there is a need for a transparent inquiry the Government always stand up for it. She said that aid had trickled into Gaza. She will know that as part of the Government’s intensive efforts, we have tried to ensure that the volume of aid is increased, and she will have heard what the Israeli Government said about flooding Gaza with aid. We are doing everything we can to increase the flow and hold the Israeli Government to account for what they have committed themselves to doing in respect of aid entering Gaza.

Margaret Greenwood: We all want to see an immediate ceasefire on the part of all parties, and the release of all hostages. The United Nations reports:
“Cases of acute malnourishment among children continue to rise due to the unprecedented food crisis, deteriorating health, water and sanitation services, and widespread fear and stress undermining the ability of mothers to breastfeed their babies.”
Aid through Rafah has been very limited, and now that route has been cut off. Does the Minister consider the cutting off of aid routes to the civilian population to be a breach of the ICJ’s interim report?

Andrew Mitchell: We are trying to ensure that we get aid into Gaza in a number of different ways. The hon. Lady will have heard me set out those ways, and I think we have taken advantage of all the opportunities we can find to increase the amount of aid getting in. We will continue to do everything we can to intensify that approach.

Peter Grant: The remit of the International Criminal Court does not extend only to war criminals in the Israeli Government and in Hamas; it extends to any Government who have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent these atrocities. The Minister may be happy to hide behind the defence of “My lawyers said it was OK,” but does he respect the right of UK civil servants to take their own independent legal advice on these matters, and will he give an assurance that no British civil servants will be put under any pressure to do anything if they honestly believe that it would contribute to crimes against humanity or war crimes in Gaza?

Andrew Mitchell: The roles and rights of British civil servants in these matters are very clearly codified, and the Government respect that absolutely.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Deputy Foreign Secretary for coming here today and responding to the urgent question for a few minutes short of an hour and a half.

Michael Ellis: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is on this topic.
On Friday Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, published a letter pointing out the uncertainties and bias relating to the casualty statistics produced by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. Many academic statisticians have also pointed out that the Hamas figures are metronomically linear and obviously fabricated. Members on all sides have used these terrorist figures, some with careless abandon, but Sir Robert said that
“it would be desirable for Ministers, Shadow Ministers and other Parliamentarians to state the source of any estimates they use in the public domain and to recognise”
their limitations. Will you, Mr Deputy Speaker, advise Members to heed the urging of the UK Statistics Authority and to be highly cautious about using Hamas casualty statistics?

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. and learned Member for his point of order and for giving notice of it. As he knows, comments made by Members in the Chamber are not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has successfully put his own view on the record.

Defence Personnel Data Breach

Grant Shapps: I would like to update the House on a data incident involving activity by a malign actor. In recent days, the Ministry of Defence has identified indications that a malign actor gained access to part of the armed forces payment network. That is an external system, completely separate from the Ministry of Defence’s core network, and it is not connected to the main military human resources system. The House will wish to note that it is operated by a contractor, and there is evidence of potential failings by it, which may have made it easier for the malign actor to gain entry. A specialist security review of the contractor and its operations is under way, and appropriate steps will be taken.
The contractor-operated system in question holds personal data of regular and reserve personnel and some recently retired veterans. That includes names and bank details, and—in a smaller number of cases—addresses. In response to the incident, we have undertaken significant and immediate action, enacting a multi-point response plan to support and protect our people. I would like to provide the House with details of this eight-point plan.
First, we immediately took the system offline. That has secured it against similar future threats. Secondly, we have launched a full investigation, drawing on Cabinet Office support and specialist external expertise to examine the potential failings of the contractor and to minimise the risk of similar incidents.
Thirdly, while our initial investigations have found no evidence that any data has been removed, as a precaution we have today alerted those service personnel affected through the chain of command. In addition, we are also sending out letters to a small number of veterans who have retired and who may have been affected as an additional precaution. The House will wish to note that the vast majority of the UK veterans community is, however, unaffected.
Fourthly, specialist advice and guidance on data security has been shared and will be available on gov.uk later today. Fifthly, we have additionally set up a helpline to support individuals. The number for the helpline is 01249 596665, and it will be available from today.
Sixthly, we are providing a commercial personal data protection service for all service personnel. That facility will constantly monitor each individual’s personal data and notify them if there are any irregularities. Even though we do not believe that their information has been stolen, we intend to do that in order to bring further peace of mind.
Seventhly, welfare and financial advice is available where needed through each individual’s chains of command.
Eighthly, on becoming aware of the incident, the MOD stopped the processing of all payments and isolated the system. I want to provide further detail on that step. We are making changes to the system to ensure that it is secure before recommencing payments through it. I confirm, though, that, in the meantime, all April salaries have been paid. Some service personnel will have experienced a slight delay in receiving some expense payments; however, we expect that to be fully resolved today, with the money in their accounts by Friday.
Furthermore, I confirm that we are ensuring that all high-value payments remain unaffected. For example, all outstanding Forces Help to Buy and terminal benefits payments have been facilitated by alternative secure transfer. As mentioned, salary payments and pensions for veterans have not been affected, and we do not expect them to be.
For reasons of national security, we cannot release further details of the suspected cyber-activity behind the incident. However, I can confirm to the House that we do have indications that this was the suspected work of a malign actor, and we cannot rule out state involvement. The incident is further proof that the UK is facing rising and evolving threats. As I set out in my speech at Lancaster House in January, the world is, I am afraid, becoming somewhat more dangerous. Last month, the Government therefore announced an increase in defence spending to meet those new threats, reaching 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade.
Following this incident, I can announce today that although this incident is entirely unrelated to our own MOD networks, we are also reviewing all personnel data networks to ensure that our people’s data is secure. This was the work of a malign actor who compromised a contractor-run network entirely separate from the MOD core system. However, as I have said, we cannot at this stage rule out state involvement from elsewhere. This eight-point plan outlines the immediate and significant action we are taking to protect our most precious resource: our people. Even though this occurred on a contractor’s system, with a malign actor involved—and we cannot rule out foreign state involvement—I want to apologise to the men and women affected. It should not have happened, and this eight-point plan seeks to ensure that it is put right and cannot happen again. I commend the statement to the House.

John Healey: There is deep concern in the House about this grave security breach. The House will accept and note the Defence Secretary’s apology to armed forces personnel. We welcome the statement and the multipoint plan, and I thank him for early sight of it.
There will indeed be serious concern in the MOD that news of this big data breach was splashed across the media before the Defence Secretary could set out the facts to Parliament. My overriding concern is for the safety of serving personnel and veterans affected, worried about the risk to themselves and their families and hearing first about the data being hacked from the media and not from the MOD. Our military put their own security at risk when they serve on the frontline, and the very last thing they should have to worry about is their data security back home. Any such hostile action against our forces is utterly unacceptable, and their protection must be the first-order priority for the Defence Secretary, whether on operations abroad or for their data at home.
Despite the Defence Secretary’s statement, he still has many serious questions to answer. On the breach itself, who held the data that was hacked? When was it discovered? When were Ministers told? How was it leaked to the press? On the contractor, Defence Business Services says that Shared Services Connected Ltd has the MOD contract for core payroll and other business services.  How many contracts does SSCL or its parent company, Sopra Steria, have with the MOD? What action has been taken by other Government Departments with similar SSCL contracts? On forces personnel, how many serving personnel and veterans have been hit by the hack? Has every serving full-timer and reservist been affected? What support is being offered?
On last night’s media reports, has a leak inquiry been launched? The MOD’s data security record is getting worse while threats against the UK continue to rise. There has been a threefold increase in MOD data breaches in the last five years, with 35 separate MOD breaches reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office and a £350,000 fine last December. Sub-contractors are well known to be the soft underbelly of security, and this latest hack raises serious questions about how the MOD manages its outsourced services.
The media have clearly been briefed that China is behind the hack, but the Defence Secretary tells us only about a “malign actor”. The Government rightly have a rigorous system before official accusations or attributions are made, but if this data breach is found to have been carried out by a hostile state, it would represent a very serious threat to our national security.
The Government have been warned. The Intelligence and Security Committee confirmed in its China report last year that cyber-attacks by hostile states now happen daily, and now our wider armed forces community are being targeted. However, the Committee also found there was no cross-Government China strategy, “completely inadequate” resourcing, and defence intelligence with no systematic record of resources focused on China.
The Defence Secretary knows that we are united in this House. We will not stand for any such attacks and, with threats increasing, such flaws in our cyber-security must be fixed. Only then will we make Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

Grant Shapps: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words about the united way in which this House tackles such issues, and there is much of what he says that I can agree with. He asked a number of questions and I will try to rattle off some responses to him.
The chosen date to announce this breach was today, to ensure that we would be able to secure the systems, back up and make sure everyone had their payments made, even if it was not through those systems. The media release last night was coincidental and unwelcome, as far as we were concerned, but unfortunately a lot of people are involved in this. He asked how many personnel had been affected, and the number is 272,000. I stress that that means it is up to that number; the number is still being refined and will probably end up lower, but none the less it is a large number of people and they may have noticed that bank payments were not made, so some of the media will have picked up on that.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the welfare of our personnel is our absolute first priority. I hope that he will agree that the eight-point plan focuses heavily on that and consists of ensuring that they are getting every bit of help and support required. Although we do not think the data is necessarily stolen, we are making the assumption that it has been in order to ensure that personnel get the support required, including through their own data monitoring services, which we are providing to each and every one of them, whether or not they are affected in this particular case.
The right hon. Gentleman has named the contractor involved, and I can confirm that that is the correct name, SSCL. As I mentioned in my statement, we have not only ordered a full review of its work within the MOD, but gone further and requested from the Cabinet Office a full review of its work across Government, and that is under way. I also briefly mentioned specialists being brought in to carry out a forensic investigation of the way this breach has operated.
Data breaches and this level of attack are nothing new, but the right hon. Gentleman is right to point out, and the House will be aware, that these attacks are growing, to the extent that the MOD’s networks are under attack millions of times per day, and they successfully repel those attacks millions of times per day. I stress again, particularly for servicemen and women listening, that this breach does not contain data that is on main MOD systems, and which is of even greater concern to us. It is right that we invest in protecting the systems to ensure that these data attacks are repelled and are not successful.
I would gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he might expect me to, that one of the best ways to do that is to invest in defence. That is why we are committed to a 2.5% increase, with a fixed timeline and a plan to pay for it, because it means we will be able to do more things, including investing further in cyber-security.

Jeremy Quin: SSCL was a joint venture with the Cabinet Office—I think there was a legacy minority stake held until last year. As is public, it also provides services to, from memory, the Metropolitan police, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I welcome the Secretary of State’s remark that the investigation will be across Government, because absolutely all areas of Government that are exposed need to be doing the necessary. What specialist support is he receiving from elsewhere in Government, and when might the malign actor be named?

Grant Shapps: As my right hon. Friend will know, the process of getting towards naming—if, indeed, a state-sponsored actor is involved—is a specific process set out by the Butler reforms, and it does take some time to reach such conclusions.
My right hon. Friend asked specifically about the ongoing work with the particular contractor. The Cabinet Office is calling in specialist analysts who will carry out that work over the coming weeks. There are two separate tracks in respect of the contractor in the MOD but also, separately, in the different places across Government that my right hon. Friend rightly identified. I stress to the House—because I suspect that this will be brought up a number of times—that we expect very high standards from our contractors that work with the lives and livelihoods of our service personnel, so we will take all appropriate actions.

Martin Docherty: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of the statement. There was not really much to disagree with in the questions from the shadow Defence Secretary, but I will perhaps ask for a little bit extra. On what the Secretary of State said in relation to there being a  malign actor, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has been bobbing, will not miss the wall when he asks the Secretary of State a question.
There is a bit of concern about the contractor, because it has previous when it comes to delivering Government contracts. Notably, there was a scandal over NHS business services and the running of immigration application systems. Given the seriousness of this issue for the Ministry of Defence, will the Secretary of State advise the House on whether he has confidence that the contractor is able to continue to deliver the contract? Will he consider a review of the specific armed forces payment network element and whether the contract should be brought back in-house and delivered by the MoD, rather than by some conglomerate based in Paris?

Grant Shapps: I can confirm that that review is already under way, and I can go further by saying that I am deeply interested in how this contractor, or indeed any other, behaves. I cannot jump straight to the conclusion of that research, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to jump straight to the conclusion of a security review. To answer his question in a more straightforward way, if it were found that there is a better way to do this and we could not be satisfied on security, we would of course consider other options, such as those he suggested.

Alicia Kearns: With one in five residents of Rutland being veterans or serving personnel, this news will be very concerning to our communities. In the last six weeks it has been concluded that the Chinese Communist party has been responsible for hacking our armed forces, for conducting a cyber-attack on the Electoral Commission and for cyber-attacks on French and British MPs; a German aide was arrested on espionage charges; and two British men were charged with obtaining information useful to an enemy. Attacking our institutions and the people who defend or represent our people is not the act of an ally or a friend, and the British police have explicitly deemed it the action of an enemy. So what is my right hon. Friend doing to make sure that we finally get a cross-Government consensus and get the Foreign Office to change our position on this matter? These are not the acts of a friend or ally; these are the actions of a country that considers itself anathema to our values, our activities and those who defend our interests.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend knows that we take the view that it is absolutely wrong for Members of Parliament to be in any way sanctioned by other countries—I know that she has been sanctioned; I have been sanctioned in other areas, although not by that particular country—and she is right to point out those cases that have been proven, including when the Deputy Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box recently and talked about electoral data. However, it is not the case in this circumstance—I do not want to mislead the House—that there is a proven connection. I stress that although we can see that a malign actor is involved, we have yet to make the full connection to a state. Although, as I pointed out in my statement, I cannot rule out that that might be the conclusion, but we have no evidence to conclude that yet.

Derek Twigg: When did the MOD last carry out an audit or review of the security precautions put in place to stop a cyber-attack with this contractor, if it did at all?

Grant Shapps: I can tell the House that, specifically for the MOD estate, we do that all the time—every day. With regard to this particular contract, I am aware that we have been in contact with the contractor about its cyber-security arrangements. For the purposes of national security, I cannot go into detail in the House, but I can perhaps provide the hon. Gentleman with a little further context separately, if that is helpful.

Julian Lewis: I welcome the fact that the helpline has been established so quickly, and I encourage the Government to be proactive in publishing advice on what people can do, for example to secure their bank accounts. What specialist advice does the MOD routinely seek before outsourcing data on service personnel to external contractors, and what standards must be verified before such outsourcing to a civilian organisation is allowed to take place?

Grant Shapps: It is obviously completely unacceptable for a contractor to leave our brave servicemen and women in this position, so we take it incredibly seriously and are very concerned by what has happened. My right hon. Friend asks about the checks that are in place. Of course, this contract long predates current Ministers, but we are checking through the details at considerable speed. As Members can imagine, we think the contractor has many questions to answer, and the ones that he asks will be included in them.

Neil Coyle: The Intelligence and Security Committee reported last year that the Government were not protecting the UK sufficiently against cyber-attacks, including from China and particularly against our armed forces. The Secretary of State says today that he is sorry, but why did he fail to listen?

Grant Shapps: As I mentioned a few moments ago, the MOD successfully defends against millions and millions of attacks each day. The threat is very real—we have that in common with all critical national infrastructure, other Departments and many businesses. That is one reason why the Government have committed to increasing defence spending to 2.5% of our GDP, with a timeline attached, so we will have more money to spend on defending against those attacks. It is one thing to wish for that defence but another to act, which is what we have done.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. We know now that the British Government were warned by the American security services nearly two years ago that the Electoral Commission’s system had been hacked and that a number of MPs had been hacked. In the two-year period since, the Government have said nothing about China’s role—it was China, and they were warned at the time. In fact, we now know that far more MPs than we thought—nearly 40—were hacked, which was never reported at the time. I am concerned that the Government refuse to say who is responsible in this case, and that it may be another two years before we discover it or it is said publicly.
May I ask my right hon. Friend a very simple question? The FBI director has said that China has a cyber-espionage capacity so vast that it dwarfs everybody else’s, and we now know the record of all the direct attacks on us in the House, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), said. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister said in 2023 that the Government were considering placing the People’s Republic of China into the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, why in heaven’s name do we not now place this malign actor in that tier and deal with it accordingly?

Grant Shapps: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments about attribution. MPs and the electoral register have been hacked, and he therefore encourages me to jump to the conclusion at the Dispatch Box that the malign actor is China in this case as well. I am simply unable to do that at this stage. He would expect me to follow due process, but I rather support his view that if attribution is required, it should happen in a timely and speedy manner. I undertake from the Dispatch Box to ensure that that happens in this case, and that we do not have many months or years pass by without it being mentioned.

Richard Foord: The malign actor did not need to access the armed forces payment network to find out the salary of a British private soldier. A quick search of Google—or indeed Baidu—reveals that the salary of a British soldier on completion of initial training is less than £24,000 a year, which is less than the average UK salary of £35,000 a year. Russia is currently paying its soldiers a starting salary of more than 2.5 million roubles for fighting in Ukraine. Will the data breach by the Conservative Government’s contractor shame the UK Government into paying some of our lowest-paid servicepeople a decent salary?

Grant Shapps: That was creative, if nothing else. The fact that we paid a nearly 10% pay increase—9.7% last year—to many ranks of our armed forces, and that the Conservative party has committed to spending 2.5% of GDP, which is a pledge I have not heard repeated by the Opposition, rather suggests that we are prepared to do something about pay and retention.

James Gray: I very much welcome the great seriousness with which the Secretary of State is taking this appalling data breach, because it really has been awful. I too am convinced that the prime contractors have very significant cyber-security requirements, so it is extremely unlikely that a prime contractor would be hacked in this way. My understanding is that subcontractors and sub-subcontractors down the food chain do not have the same level of cyber-control. We have something called the Cyber Essentials accreditation, but even that is not compulsory. Will the Secretary of State look at the way subcontractors and sub-subcontractors are checked for cyber-security and make that accreditation compulsory rather than voluntary?

Grant Shapps: The concerning thing about this particular incident is that SSCL is a primary contractor, rather than a subcontractor, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the wider issue. The answer is yes: our intention—indeed, our instruction—is to go right the  way through. As I said in my initial comments, we take this incredibly seriously. It is unacceptable that it happened, and we will take every possible measure, once we have got to the forensic truth of what happened, including against the contractor and any subcontractors.

Justin Madders: I understand why the Secretary of State is reluctant to name China, but it seems that every Member in this Chamber believes it is probably responsible for the breach; that is certainly what the media are reporting. I hope the Secretary of State is able to commit to a very clear timescale for coming back with some clarity on that.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about a point that has been made by a number of Members. The outsourced contractors are clearly the weak spot in our system. Will he commit to examining and analysing every single subcontractor, with a view to bringing them back in house in the light of the threats we face?

Grant Shapps: The MOD, as is the case with most militaries, uses a lot of contractors and subcontractors. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly: yes, the review will encompass all that work, and if we believe we can do this better—many Members may conclude that this would not have happened had that data been held in the MOD and on our own systems—we will endeavour to do that.

Bob Seely: First, I thank the Minister for his call this morning. It is a little frustrating to be told that one’s bank details and national insurance number are winging their way to Beijing or wherever they have gone. Given that I was also caught up in the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China breach, I wonder whether I am in the running to be the most hacked MP in Britain.
If it was weak security with the contractor, does that mean it was not a state actor? If the contractor had a high level of security, do we assume it is more likely that a state actor was behind the breach? If there was a state actor behind it, do we assume that it is China, because it has form on stealing mass data and has done so from the US federal Government?

Grant Shapps: I thank my hon. Friend for his service, and I am sorry that he had to receive that phone call about what has happened. I stress that we do not believe the data has necessarily been stolen—there is a danger of running a couple of steps ahead. We have responded with the eight-point plan as if it has been stolen, because we think that is the best position to put everybody in, including my hon. Friend, given the seriousness of the potential breach. I will struggle to answer the detail of the rest of his questions for national security reasons that I hope he will understand. Once again, I undertake that the next stage of this, which is a process set out in the Butler reforms, will be carried out quickly and efficiently.

Andrew Western: We know that the Government consider it likely that China is responsible for this hack, coming hot on the heels of the revelation that it was responsible for the hack on the  Electoral Commission, as was confirmed in March. If it transpires that China is again responsible, will the Government finally stop talking tough on China and labelling it an “epoch-defining challenge”, and start acting accordingly by taking serious measures up to and including diplomatic expulsions?

Grant Shapps: I have outlined the Government’s position on this a couple of times, but I do want to note that the hon. Gentleman says “consider it likely”; I am saying that I cannot rule it out. Those are two different things. We need to allow for this forensic work to go ahead before we start attributing it. However, if there is attribution, there will clearly also be consequences.

Mark Francois: Well, at least it wasn’t Capita. This will be very worrying for service personnel and their families and for veterans, who will feel disrespected by the fact that the Government seem to have briefed that it was China overnight and then not had the nerve to confirm that in the House today because someone rang up from the Foreign Office and said, “Don’t do that.” When, oh when, will we start standing up to the Chinese in the way that they are clearly not frightened of doing to us?

Grant Shapps: Indeed, it was not my right hon. Friend’s favourite contractor on this particular occasion. None the less, we will be carrying out a comprehensive review of the contractor’s work. Again, I want to make it clear to the House that we did absolutely everything that we could to avoid this being made public until I had the opportunity to come to the House. We proactively endeavoured to ensure that our own approach towards removing the data that was online—closing that system down, ensuring the personnel were paid, making sure the alternative payments system was in place for expenses and other things—could all happen ideally before we came to the House. We most certainly did not wish to see nor brief out the story. Unfortunately, as a large number of people were impacted or potentially impacted, it was almost impossible to expect them not to go and talk about it, and I believe that that is how it came into the public domain.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about this. He is a champion for ensuring that these contractors do the jobs they are actually paid to do. We are now trawling through all the detail and, as I have said before, we will not leave this hanging. We will take every appropriate action because, as he might imagine, my entire team and I are very concerned about the welfare of our personnel—brave men and women who do not deserve to have this happen to them. We do not want to see it happen in the name of the MOD, either.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his positive response in trying to assure our personnel. We saw this type of data breach with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, where information on officers and staff leaked, and the stress was palpable. What steps are the Secretary of State and Government taking to ensure that staff feel safe and protected, and that there is funding available for service personnel protection if necessary?

Grant Shapps: One big difference in this case is that it does not involve a member of armed forces personnel who did something wrong—this was done to them. It is  not a case of someone opening an attachment or something of that nature. This is something that has happened through the system that the contractor ran. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to focus, as I hope I have today and as has the whole House, on the personnel and what it means to them, and in particular on reassuring them. I am grateful for the attitude and approach of the House, which I think will have largely done that for service personnel.
I will not reiterate each of the eight points. However, through the chain of command, the phone number that is now available, the information going on gov.uk and the wraparound services, including the fraud-checking service that staff will now individually have access to and many others, I hope personnel are reassured. Remember that we do not think the data has necessarily been stolen, but we are behaving as if it has in order to provide absolute security.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House so speedily with a great deal about the action that is being taken. I am concerned both about the reluctance to name the malign actor and about the tendency for things to get lost in the Cabinet Office, which has become such a morass of activity.
Who in the Cabinet Office is charged with this responsibility? Is it the National Security Adviser? Which Cabinet committee is overseeing this? Is it the National Security Council itself? I hope so. Which Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff is responsible for cyber-security? Who will be responsible for making sure that all these elements are working together to conduct this review very thoroughly? I suggest that the Secretary of State brings forward a White Paper very shortly on the lessons learned from this incident and others, to provide the reassurance that not least our service personnel need.

Grant Shapps: I stress again that it is not that I am reluctant to name the malign actor, but that we need more information before I can do so. We are not trying to avoid giving the House this information; we need to be certain before we are able to do so.
My hon. Friend asks who in the Cabinet Office is charged with this responsibility, and I have spoken directly with the Deputy Prime Minister to make sure it is set from the very highest levels. My hon. Friend also asks who has overall responsibility, and it is the excellent Chief of Defence People, Phil Hally, who is very good. He has now chaired, I think, 11 internal meetings on this issue, in order to get everything ready for this afternoon. As I have said, it is with deep regret that we did not quite make it to today before the news started to break late last night. Phil Hally is responsible and will continue to be responsible for those efforts.

James Sunderland: As an affected veteran, I feel a responsibility for representing and championing my former colleagues in this matter. Will the Defence Secretary please assure me on three particular areas? First, will he assure me that an appropriate diplomatic protest has been made, or will be made, to the guilty party? Secondly, will assurance be given to the House in due course that the firewall protocols given to defence contractors will match or exceed those given to the MOD itself? Thirdly, will he assure me that  the information that has been hacked, if indeed it has been hacked, will be sacrosanct so that no malign actor can gain access to bank accounts after this event?

Grant Shapps: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend. He makes three excellent points, and I absolutely assure him that the guilty party will be brought to book. I also assure him that the MOD was not responsible for failing to issue correct instructions, in terms of the contractual requirement to keep this data safe.
Members on both sides of the House have pushed this point hard, and I will make sure that it is not buried or lost in process. I will return to this House. I cannot promise to do that in the next few days, as the Butler process takes a while, but I will not allow it to drop. The House has my undertaking on that issue.

Jason McCartney: May I delve into how veterans are being reassured that their data is not being used by, for example, financial scammers? As a Royal Air Force veteran, I am the proud president of the RAF Association in Huddersfield, which I know will be very worried about this issue. Will the Secretary of State be using forces charities such as the Royal Air Forces Association, the Royal British Legion, the RAF Benevolent Fund, SSAFA and many more to reassure veterans that their data will not be used by financial scammers?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we have written to each of those organisations today, both to enlist their support and to provide the detail and information to which the House has been privy this afternoon.
In answer to my hon. Friend’s specific question, a commercial organisation will now be monitoring the personal data of the individuals affected. That would include, for example, the data being used in a suspicious way, appearing on the dark web, or any other outcome. In a way, an additional layer of security will be attached to these individuals. Again, I can confirm that, as of this moment, we have seen no suspicious activity at all on those accounts.

John Redwood: Is there any indication of how the thief wanted to use the data, if they have actually got it? Have all the staff been advised to change accounts, passwords and internet access in every way, so that no further harm can occur?

Grant Shapps: In answer to the first point, no, there is no indication. On the second point, our regular approach—I speak as someone with an MOD account—is that passwords have to be changed regularly in order to continue to use the system, so those security measures are in place. People do not need to change their bank accounts as a result of this incident. Apart from anything else, using someone’s bank details to make a payment somewhere else would be technically difficult, as a new account would need two-factor authentication, so it is not necessary for people to change their accounts. The monitoring service will provide an overlay of additional reassurance to them.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement in qualifying the scale of the breach and the operational changes he is going to introduce. More strategically, it illustrates  how the changing character of conflict is impacting our world, with the digital terrain being as important as the physical terrain. That said, had this been a physical, kinetic attack on MOD main building, the House would be demanding some form of proportionate response. Indeed, it could be argued that it would be a NATO article 5 situation. Will the Secretary of State consider the bigger picture, because the rules of engagement and the Geneva conventions are out of date? The Secretary of State is right to say that threats are rising and evolving, but we need to address how errant nations are held to account and what constitutes a proportionate response to a cyber-attack.

Grant Shapps: It is certainly true to say that a malign actor is involved—we know that. It is possible, and I cannot rule it out, that it is attached to a country, but as soon as I say that everyone assumes it therefore is attached to a country. I am not in a position to confirm that at this point, simply because incredibly detailed forensic work is required to get to that point. My right hon. Friend is right that people differentiate, in some senses, between physical attacks and cyber-attacks, but both can be incredibly serious and have enormous consequences. Again, because we do not believe that the information has, in fact, been stolen and because we are monitoring it very carefully through the eight different measures, I stress that in this case there is a degree of feeling that we have caught it and we are controlling it. However, my right hon. Friend’s wider point is absolutely correct.

Jesse Norman: The Secretary of State has been clear about the serious nature of the breach; he has said so several times from the Dispatch Box. He has also said that the contractor failed to follow MOD guidelines and therefore is culpable, to some degree, as far as we can see so far. What sanctions are in place to penalise that contractor? What sanctions will the Secretary of State apply at the limit if that contractor is found to be in breach? Finally, he mentioned addresses. Roughly how many addresses have potentially been leaked? I am deeply concerned not just about bank details but about the safety and wellbeing of those soldiers.

Grant Shapps: I share my right hon. Friend’s concern about the safety and wellbeing of those soldiers. Thankfully, the answer is that very few addresses have been leaked—a very tiny number. On sanctions and what will happen, we must not jump the order of events. We have to be confident we are able to run through the audit trail of exactly what has happened. However, I again make it clear from the Dispatch Box that if negligence has been involved, then we will take the strongest possible action as a result. He and the whole House understand that that is our concern this afternoon.

David Mundell: May I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that there is cross-Government working to identify the vulnerabilities in the system? We have heard this afternoon that a subcontractor’s involvement was identified as a vulnerable point. Recently, my constituents had their medical records hacked because, as a small, rural authority, it was identified as more vulnerable. Are  we, across Government and across the United Kingdom, seeking out those vulnerabilities to make our data safer from malign actors and indeed from plain criminals?

Grant Shapps: I reassure my right hon. Friend that the reason I immediately asked the Cabinet Office to be involved is that, although I can do checks on that contractor and others across the MOD and MOD-related contracts, I cannot do so across the rest of Government. That is exactly the job that the Cabinet Office will now undertake. When data is stolen—or rather exposed and potentially stolen—it causes a great deal of concern and we want to ensure that that cannot happen. I reiterate that the data was not being held by the MOD systems and did not affect the MOD systems, but as Secretary of State I recognise that our responsibility extends to whoever is holding the data for our personnel, and I apologise to those involved again. This should never have happened and we will make sure it is put right.

Richard Graham: The Defence Secretary has reassured us that there is no evidence yet of any data having been removed and there is no suggestion that the MOD’s core system and HR network have been compromised. Can he confirm whether there is any evidence yet of ransomware being used? What assessment has he made of whether any data has been published? Although he reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) that the number of addresses that have been accessed is small, can he confirm that those veterans whose addresses have been accessed will be advised accordingly so that they can take security precautions, if need be?
Lastly, on the wider points, can the telephone helpline be used by anyone concerned about late payment of miscellaneous expenses? Will the Secretary of State relay to the Deputy Prime Minister my strong view that the time is ripe for a Cyber Re, or reinsurance, in the same way that we created Flood Re a while back, precisely to deal with the likely costs for small authorities, such as those alluded to, of having to repair their cyber-defences against such future attacks?

Grant Shapps: It is characteristic of my hon. Friend to include five questions in his one. The answers are: no evidence of ransomware; no evidence of data published; a very small number of addresses were accessed, and yes, those people will be contacted individually or as a group if need be; and late payments are unlikely to cause much of a difficulty, as I have said, because they will all be resolved by today and the money will be in people’s accounts either now or by the end of the week. However, if personnel have experienced any particular issues, they should take that initially through their chain of command. The phone number is also available and individual instances will be looked at on a case-by-case basis, as he would expect. He has probably taken me slightly out of my area on Cyber Re, which I think will be something for the Cabinet Office to consider. It sounds like a smart idea, but I am afraid he has got me outside my tracks.

Nigel Evans: As the hon. Gentleman waited very patiently to ask those last five questions, I let him get away with it. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for responding to questions for over three quarters of an hour.

Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences)  (New Drivers)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Kim Leadbeater: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about licences issued to new drivers for the period of six months after the issuing of the licence, for the purpose of increasing safety for road users; and for connected purposes.
Since I was elected in 2021 as the Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, road safety has been one of my top priorities and an issue frequently raised with me by concerned constituents. Speeding drivers, high-performance rental vehicles, off-road motorbikes and quad bikes, inconsiderate and dangerous parking and reckless driving blight our towns and villages.
Not long after my election, our community was shocked by a tragic road traffic incident on White Lee Road in Heckmondwike, in which a much-loved local woman lost her life. Our thoughts remain with her family and friends. I have therefore worked closely with the excellent Batley and Spen neighbourhood policing team, local councillors and the West Yorkshire deputy mayor for policing and crime, Alison Lowe, to support the Vision Zero strategy to eliminate fatal collisions on our roads.
That is an ambitious target, but one that other regions and countries have shown is possible with the right measures and resourcing. However, it requires a concerted effort to get there because, despite all the positive advances in road safety in recent decades—from the installation of seatbelts and airbags to drink-driving testing, speed limits, speed cameras and MOTs—it is a tragic and horrifying fact that 29,742 individuals were killed or seriously injured on Great Britain’s roads in 2022. As I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that is a startling statistic. We must never forget that, behind it, thousands of families across the country are grieving and going through unimaginable pain. Lives are changed forever and families torn apart by tragic and often avoidable collisions.
Indeed, I was inspired to introduce the Bill following a meeting that I and colleagues had with Dr Ian Greenwood. Fifteen years ago, he tragically lost his 12-year-old daughter, Alice, in a horrific crash involving a young, inexperienced driver. That 18-year-old driver was racing four of his friends at night time on a rural road when they crashed into the car carrying Ian’s two children and their mother. Alice, whose sister and mum were seriously injured, was killed. The 18-year-old driver and their 16-year-old passenger were also killed—three young lives lost. In the face of such enormous personal grief, Ian has steadfastly and courageously campaigned for road safety reform, including the introduction of graduated driving licences.
Sadly, Ian is not alone. On “BBC Breakfast” this morning, we heard from Sam Robinson, the mother of Billy, who was in the passenger seat of a packed, overcrowded car with seven of his teenage friends when it crashed on the way to a birthday party. Billy and the driver tragically lost their lives. The consequences of that awful day will last forever. Ian and Sam’s stories are heartbreaking. I know how painful their grief is, and I hope that we can remember them and many others today.
The Bill is not about taking away young people’s freedom or fun; it is about trying to save their lives. By giving them the opportunity to build their experience and confidence during the first six months of driving after passing their test, we can try to ensure they have a happy lifetime of driving and the future that they deserve. Road fatalities and serious injuries are not inevitable. Our roads can and must be safer. As the Transport Secretary himself said in March:
“Despite Britain having some of the safest roads in the world, the levels of serious injury and road deaths remain too high.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 776.]
Although there are many ways in which we can and should look at improving road safety, the Bill focuses on one important area of significance: new, often young, drivers who have just passed their test. In 2022, around a fifth of all deaths or serious injuries on our roads were a result of collisions involving cars driven by a young driver. Many of us will remember—just about—becoming new drivers. There is the excitement of passing our test, the independence, the freedom, the feeling of growing up, but what about the inexperience, the nervousness, the underlying lack of confidence, or, sometimes, the overconfidence?
We have a few lessons on local roads that we probably already know quite well, read the highway code back to front, learn all the road signs, master the dreaded parallel parking and then complete a 40-minute practical test before being presented, excitingly, with our full licence for life. We want to celebrate with our mates—maybe with a road trip, or perhaps we offer to be the designated driver on a night out—but we are now driving in a variety of conditions, without the support or guidance of an instructor or an experienced driver. I am sure that we can all see the problem. The danger is obvious.
It is hardly surprising then that, according to the Department for Transport, when compared with vehicles driven by drivers of other ages, the most common contributory factors for fatal or serious collisions involving younger drivers was
“driver failed to look properly”,
followed by “loss of control,” “exceeding speed limit” and “learner or inexperienced driver.” The AA has also found that 71% of fatal collisions involving young drivers were on rural roads—roads where the driver is often unfamiliar with single lanes and blind corners, and roads where experience would instil caution—but currently driving lessons and tests may have failed to give the necessary experience. All this is reflected in the research produced by ALA Insurance Brokers in 2017, which found that almost 28% of drivers aged 25 to 34 admitted to being involved in a crash in their first year of driving.
This is where I believe we can take immediate action to increase safety on our roads. The Bill I am presenting today would place restrictions on newly qualified drivers for the first six months immediately after they pass their test, following consultation. Substantial evidence shows that, during that time, drivers are statistically much more likely to be involved in a collision, often with devastating consequences.
Other countries that have successfully introduced graduated driving licences have included zero-alcohol consumption for newly qualified drivers, as well as restrictions on the number of passengers in the car and  on night-time driving, with exemptions, obviously, for work, medical and emergency reasons. Additional options to consider are the inclusion of rural roads, motorways or dual carriageways as part of the driving test, a requirement during driving lessons that a driver gains experience on different road conditions, and consideration of the engine sizes new drivers are permitted to drive within the first few months of passing their tests.
We should consult widely in this country, including with young drivers themselves—although I have to say that the ones I have spoken to would actually welcome some of these changes—and we have to look to other countries and their successful implementation of graduated driving licences. For example, in New Zealand, its graduated driving licence scheme has led to a 23% reduction in car collision injuries for 15 to 19-year-olds and a 12% reduction for 20 to 24-year-olds. We should be looking to countries such as New Zealand, as well as Canada, Sweden and Australia, and learning from best practice.
I am pleased that both the AA and the RAC are fully supporting the Bill, and that graduated driving licences more broadly are also supported by the road safety charity Brake, the Association of British Insurers, Project EDWARD—Every Day Without A Road Death—and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. Indeed, Edmund King, president of the AA, recently said to “BBC Breakfast” that a six-month graduated driving licence
“is a very small price to pay, and in that 6 months the drivers can get much more experience on the road”.
I therefore strongly believe that this proposal will not only have a very direct effect in reducing the contributing factors to road collisions, but, most importantly, act as a reminder to all novice drivers—actually, regardless of  age—that during their first few months driving on the road they should take additional caution, and take steps to gradually build their confidence and experience on different road types, in different conditions and at different times of day.
I hope Members across the House will consider this proposal seriously and work with me, ahead of Second Reading, to ensure the measures in the Bill are proportionate, evidence-led—the evidence is clear—and effective at significantly reducing road traffic collisions. Finally, I would like to place on record my personal thanks to Ian Greenwood, who I mentioned earlier, whose devastating personal experience prompted his extensive research and campaigning on this issue, which has assisted me throughout. I hope Members will agree that this relatively small measure will be highly effective and, in the years to come, only lead us to question—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am terribly sorry, but the hint was that this is a ten-minute rule Bill, and we have hit the 10 minutes.
This would be the opportunity, if anybody wishes to oppose the Bill, to make a speech. I have had no indication of anybody wishing to do so, and I see no one, so I will put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kim Leadbeater, Tim Loughton, Alicia Kearns, Edward Timpson, Holly Lynch, Lilian Greenwood, Mr Barry Sheerman, Naz Shah and Mrs Paulette Hamilton present the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 May, and to be printed (Bill 212).

Defence

Grant Shapps: I beg to move,
That this House has considered defence.
In recent weeks, our armed forces have been required to use force to protect international shipping and to protect our allies. Our armed forces are the best of us; we increasingly need them, and we are increasingly asking more of them as well. When the threat picture changes, the first duty of Government is to respond, which is why this Government have committed to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030, the biggest increase in spending for a generation.

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I will just make a bit of progress first, keen as the right hon. Gentleman is. That will result in a £75 billion cash boost to our nation’s defences over six years from a flat cash baseline. Although we have had a long-held commitment to hit 2.5% when financial conditions allow, delivering that commitment now involves choices.

Kevan Jones: If the Secretary of State is serious, can I ask him why next year, if we exclude the Ukraine funding from the defence budget, the core defence budget actually goes down?

Grant Shapps: It does not.

Kevan Jones: It does.

Grant Shapps: No, it does not. The outcome from the defence budget, which must be the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman is judging last year’s, includes supplementaries. In particular, it now includes the additional half a billion, which I can tell the right hon. Gentleman I chose to send to Ukraine as an active decision, rather than it coming into our main budget; I feel that that would have the support of the House. When we include all that, the budget increases. In any case, it already increased by 1.8%.

Kevan Jones: It does not.

Grant Shapps: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue this debate, but the fact is that it does as soon as we include the supplementaries.

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I will not for the moment, because this point has been discussed ad infinitum. In any case, we are offering another £75 billion in cash terms, which I note that the Labour party has yet to do because the funding requires a determination, in our case, to get the civil service back to pre-covid levels and to help pay for the expansion of our defence. It requires sound economic management and, above all, an understanding that an investment in deterrence today is wiser and less painful than paying to fight a war tomorrow.

John Spellar: Has the Secretary of State not just confirmed that the amount of money in the budget designated for the British armed forces has, in fact, gone down?

Grant Shapps: No, I still have not confirmed that because, before the extra half a billion, if we take the outcome from last year and the amount that was pledged for this year—including supplementaries, to be clear, which is the same basis as last year—it is an increase of 1.8%. However, this is rather beside the point, because since the time we debated this question at the Select Committee on Defence, we have committed to putting in another £75 billion in cash terms from the baseline over the next six years.

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

Grant Shapps: I think the right hon. Gentleman will want me to complete this section. I would be interested to hear him apply that commitment to his own Front Benchers, because this Conservative £75 billion rise in defence spending is highly significant. It is precisely what our armed forces need to respond to axes of authoritarian states that are trying to reshape the world in their image, and it is the right thing to do.

Bob Seely: Rather than Labour Members trying to poke holes in this commitment, would it not be better if they committed to doing the same thing?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend has pre-empted a passage a little later in my speech, in which I suggest that those right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches who want to see more money go into defence might first persuade their own Front Benchers to follow our lead and ensure that we get more money into it. I am very concerned about the apparent failure of the Labour party to match our funding commitment. Labour Members are being incredibly evasive about funding. In addition to not confirming whether they will do the 2.5% in the next six years—we look forward to hearing whether they confirm that—they are also promising, or perhaps I should say threatening, a review of defence. Our enemies will waste no time in putting the UK in their sights if they think that the next thing that would happen is a multi-year review—a waste of time and money that should instead be spent on our brave servicemen and women. Labour’s apparent refusal to follow our lead and back our fully funded spending plans would decimate our armed forces by cutting up to £75 billion from defence.

Derek Twigg: Why does the Secretary of State think that Paul Johnson, in an article on Monday 29 April, said:
“What annoyed me was not the commitment…”—
to the 2.5%—
“It was all about the misleading and opaque way in which the additional spending was presented. When it wanted to make it look big, the Government claimed it would boost spending by £75 billion; when it wanted to appear fiscally responsible… It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes, or even the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, to see that there might be something not quite consistent about these claims.”

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the way this is presented is entirely the usual way for the Treasury to present increases in spending. If I take him back to the previous cash boost for defence—I think it was £24 billion and it was described, I think, as being over five years—it was presented on  exactly the same basis, and I do not remember the hon. Gentleman making the same point then. Regardless of the numbers, surely the point is this: will the Labour party commit to this timeline?
Labour Members said that they wanted to get to 2.5%, and that they would do it when conditions allow. We have now said that we know conditions will allow because of the management of the economy. Will they follow us, or will they send their Back Benchers out to criticise an increase, even though their own Front Benchers will not match it themselves? Perhaps we should not be surprised, given that the Leader of the Opposition, not once but twice backed Jeremy Corbyn—sorry, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—to be Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition proclaims his support for our nuclear deterrent, yet he has stacked his Front Bench with anti-nuclear campaigners—I  counted 11 who voted against Trident—while he goes up to Barrow and claims he is all in favour.

Kevan Jones: The Secretary of State is doing, like last time he came out on this debate, his used-car salesman act. The fact of the matter is clear: the only way we get to £75 billion is if we freeze the defence budget for the next six years. Is he going to do that? Given what he announced last week, will he explain first where the money is coming from, and secondly what is the proportion of resource departmental expenditure limits and capital departmental expenditure limits? There is no detail at all. It is just an empty promise and a political slogan that he is batting around as his usual avuncular self.

Grant Shapps: The way the right hon. Gentleman tries to represent it is simply not true. If it were meaningless, why has his own party not taken the difficult decisions to get to the £75 billion which, to be clear, is the amount additional to what is currently programmed in? He is right that defence budgets may have increased over time, but £75 billion is still the additional figure. If it is so straightforward, why doesn’t he encourage those on the Labour Front Bench to do it? I think I know the answer. He asks how it will be paid for, and it will largely be paid for by cutting the civil service back down to pre-covid levels. Labour Members do not want to cut 72,000 from the workforce of the civil service so that it goes back down to pre-covid levels, and because of that they will not follow us in our commitment. That shows where their choices lie.
Labour Members say they want 2.5% and are keen to see that, but they are not willing to put in place the difficult decisions to reach that. By failing to take those decisions, they will be failing to fund our armed forces if they were to come into office. That would leave our nation more vulnerable, and play directly into the hands of our adversaries, including Putin.
In January, I set out a comprehensive case for increasing defence spending in response to what I described as “a more dangerous world”. After all, Putin is on the march, pursuing wars in the east of Europe while backing greater political influence and assassinations in the west. China has certainly become a lot more assertive in recent years. Russian mercenaries, Islamic extremists and military strongmen have overrun democracies and societies in Africa.
As Iran has nourished and manipulated its proxy militia and groups around the middle east, the Islamic republic itself has for the first time carried out an aerial assault on a democratic near-neighbour, Israel. Its Hamas terrorist allies brought mass murder to Israelis on 7 October, and they have brought pain to the Palestinians—both before and since—with the Hamas approach to running that area. Meanwhile, one of Iran’s other key allies—the Houthis—continues to hold global trade hostage in the Red sea. So, from Moscow to Tehran and from Beijing to Pyongyang, a network of authoritarian states is pressuring allies and our interests. Working together, they are more connected than they have ever been before.

Bob Seely: The Secretary of State is making a really important point. Without sounding too academic, do we actually know what war is nowadays? Clearly, there is conventional war, which we recognise, but what he is talking about is proxy war. Earlier, we were discussing cyber-attacks, China’s and Russia’s role in this sort of hybrid war, and the integration of military and non-military means, which is behind military doctrines in an increasing number of countries. Are we joined up enough to be able to fight these modern conflicts, which are part military and part non-military? Do we actually understand what conflict is in this century?

Grant Shapps: It is true—my hon. Friend will know this as well as or better than me—that in each generation the world relearns what it is to have conflict. We have seen that with Russia, we are seeing it at the moment in the middle east, and we have seen it, as discussed, through various cyber-activities, which are in fact entirely continuous; it is just that most of them do not succeed.
The world has changed, the defence reviews and the refresh looked to try to learn those lessons. One of the things, not least because of Britain’s forward-leaning approach to the war in Ukraine, has been that we have been at the forefront of learning some of those new lessons with drones and other technologies; indeed, we have been speeding up the introduction of new technologies such as laser weapons. It is important that we think about this as a whole rather than just through the traditional eyes of three armed services. We now have to think about space and the domain in cyber, and that is what our strategic command does.

John Redwood: The Secretary of State is making a good case. Does he agree that, as this extra money is available, we should ensure that more of it is spent on procuring weapons and military requirements here in the United Kingdom, because we cannot be properly defended unless we can make our own military vehicles, our own steel and our own explosives? We are short of capacity.

Grant Shapps: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is incredibly important that we develop—or, rather, further develop—our own domestic defence industrial base. That is one of the reasons why we have spoken about putting that industrial base on a war footing, and it is one of the reasons why—this is not, as has been suggested, some sort of cheap gibe—it is important that the Government, or indeed the Opposition if they want to be the Government, set out the path in order that that investment can take place. That base will not be able to invest unless it knows what is happening on a multi-year basis.

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I have been quite generous; I will make a little bit of progress.
That is why this Conservative Government will act now. We are going to deliver the greatest strengthening of our national defence since the cold war. Some will argue that the threats we face are perhaps not imminent or existential. They may claim that increased defence spending is not a good use of money, which perhaps should go on other commitments—there are many to discuss—but I argue that we have seen the consequences up and down the country of the more dangerous world that I described in that Lancaster House speech.
In recent years, we have suffered terror attacks. We have also suffered cyber-attacks on business, on Government, as we were just talking about, and on critical national infrastructure. They were mostly not successful, but the amount that it costs to get around them increases all the time none the less. We have suffered intellectual property theft. We have seen Hong Kong protesters dragged into the Chinese consulate in Manchester and beaten. We have seen Iranian journalists threatened and stabbed in London. We have seen former Russian military officers assassinated in hotels in Mayfair and poisoned in suburban homes in Salisbury and, just last month, British citizens charged with setting fire to Ukrainian-linked business units in east London, apparently on the instructions of Russian intelligence.

Jesse Norman: My right hon. Friend has compellingly described the current situation as moving from post-war to pre-war. Does he share my concern that the people of this country, as a whole, are not yet in a place to understand the seriousness of the problem, that there is in some sense, therefore, the beginnings of an issue of consent, and that it is harder than it should be for young people to get excited about joining some of our big contractors and supporting the work we are doing for our armed forces on diverse fronts around the country? If that is true, does he think that there is a specific role for the Ministry of Defence to lead the process of building consent across the UK?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One issue we face is that if you are not Iranian or Russian and living in the UK, you may believe that this does not affect you too much. My entire argument—indeed, the argument I made at Lancaster House—is that this is not just something that impacts on foreign nationals in the distance; we are all, in effect, under attack. For evidence of that, we can see up and down the land the direct impact on every single family as Putin drove into Ukraine. Every single household budget in Britain was under attack. Remember, the winter before last we were paying up to half of the average family’s energy bill. This really does matter back home. It is again why I stress that defence is the cheapest version of looking after ourselves, not the most expensive one. That is why it is so important that, with Putin inflicting that inflation on British households and British business, we wake up to that fact and understand it. I actually think the British people do understand. They do want us to do more. It is popular to make sure that we properly defend these isles and defend our interests overseas. That is why this party has been proud to bring forward this big boost to our national defence.
As was mentioned earlier, this year I have—because this battle is so very important for all of us, not least our Ukrainian friends—provided another half a billion pounds of aid to Ukraine. That will take our total 2024 military package to a record £3 billion, which is the most we have provided in any year. Previously, it was £2.3 billion and £2.3 billion. It brings our total support overall to £12.5 billion, in addition to other aid. In addition, to help Ukraine repel Russia’s mounting attacks, we gave, a couple of weeks ago, the largest tranche of military gifting assistance to date.
It is worth reiterating the size and scale of that, because I fear that with the announcement of the 2.5% and the trajectory—I think all Members believe that Ukraine’s win is absolutely existential and important—the scale of the gifting was perhaps not noticed. It included 4 million rounds of ammunition, 1,600 key munitions, including air defence and precision long-range missiles, all our remaining AS-90 artillery platforms, 60 combat boats, 400 armour-protected and all-terrain vehicles, and hundreds of bombs for Ukraine’s new fleet of F-16 combat aircraft. Just as we initially provided our Ukrainian friends with trained troops, anti-tank missiles, main battle tanks, missiles and so many other firsts, we will now ensure that the aircraft we cannot provide for them—we do not fly F-16s—are properly provided with munitions.

Julian Lewis: I know that the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to Ukraine is second to none. Does he agree with me that if Putin is seen to fail in Ukraine, the threat to western Europe, the United Kingdom and NATO countries will recede for a generation? If Putin is seen to gain any sort of victory in Ukraine, the opposite will happen.

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is precisely the point, and that is exactly why it is right to invest in Ukraine. I do not want to make this a political speech—

Kevan Jones: It’s the way you tell them.

Grant Shapps: This is a serious issue, and I am surprised by that sort of attitude. I want to ask, because it is a serious point, whether the Opposition are now ready to commit to that extra £500 billion if they were elected, because I have yet to hear that confirmed, and that is an important issue for our Ukrainian friends. I accept that the Ukrainians have the Opposition’s support, but they also need the pledge of money and the certainty that this House will provide it, come  what may.

Mark Francois: If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, a few minutes ago he said that we have now gifted all our AS-90 howitzers to Ukraine. We are buying 14 new Archers. We are then buying a completely different system based on Boxer, which will take some years to come into service, and our multiple-launch rocket systems are being refurbished. What is he doing to ensure that the British Army is not left without heavy artillery for the next few years, because what he is talking about is a dangerous risk?

Grant Shapps: As my right hon. Friend will realise, it is not a move I have taken easily. There is a balance to be struck between where the weapons can do the most  good and the extraordinarily difficult fight that our Ukrainian friends are in right now. I thought, believe and think that that warrants the provision of further AS-90s. The new equipment, as I do not need to tell him, is vastly superior and will be in our hands quickly, not least because of the excellent work of the Minister for Defence Procurement, who has sped up the acquisition of new equipment through his brilliant integrated plan.
I want to be entirely clear with the House: there are choices to make when we do this gifting, and we have to make the choices as to where we think the equipment will be most useful and how quickly we can replenish it. One of the very good things about this significant boost in defence spending, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will appreciate, is that it will enable us to replenish not only equipment but, crucially, munitions, which have been a real concern of his and many others.

Bob Seely: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I will make a little progress, if I may.
We have pledged this half a billion pounds extra, so we are at £3 billion a year. The crucial point—it has perhaps been lost, or perhaps I have not said it from this Dispatch Box—is that over the course of the next Parliament, this party in government would provide £15 billion of guaranteed aid to Ukraine. When I speak to President Zelensky or my opposite number, Minister Umerov, they make it clear that the certainty of that funding is the most important thing we can do right now. I implore and invite other parties to suggest that they would follow that pledge, in order to provide that certainty to the Ukrainians right now. It matters now that the Ukrainians have certainty that that aid will be there, come what may and regardless of electoral cycles elsewhere, even though we will still be here.

Jim Shannon: I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to defence and the extra money for the budget. I know that he is very committed to the defence sector in Northern Ireland, and we want to encourage that. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry on defence procurement for Northern Ireland and is suggesting that there should be a regional hub, because that will encourage more companies from Northern Ireland to be involved and be part of that spend for defence over the next couple of years. First, is the Minister aware of what the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is doing on procurement? Secondly, other firms such as Nitronica, an electronics manufacturing firm in Ballynahinch, wish to be part of defence procurement but have not had the opportunity. It is important that we all play our part. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me, but I am curious to hear whether there is a plan.

Grant Shapps: I certainly do agree: all parts of the United Kingdom have a very important role to play, especially Northern Ireland, where missile production, ships and electronics are particular skills. It is important for people there to have a level of certainty that we intend to invest and will carry on investing. Today we can outline exactly how much we would spend each year in the future. By doing so, it is worth them investing. It is cheaper for them to invest. The cost of capital to  build and maintain factories falls when we provide that certainty. I therefore hope that the Labour party will match our long-term pledge to Ukraine and to defence spending, because there is no way that warm words about defence spending make a difference to the frontline; the difficult choices have to be made. We have made our choices and we will reduce the size of the civil service back to pre-covid levels. Labour can make its own choices, but I encourage it to join us in the defence boost pledge.
There is no more important element of defence than our nuclear deterrent. Again, it is good to hear that both sides of the House now seem to back the nuclear deterrent, but that cannot be done without backing the money to support it.

Julian Lewis: It is true that both sides of the House strongly back the nuclear deterrent at the moment, if my right hon. Friend is talking about the Labour Opposition. However, with recent talk of the prospect of a hung Parliament, one could find oneself in the same situation as the Cameron Government in 2010, when the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and I were begging for a vote to be held to renew the nuclear deterrent, but because of the coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats, that vote was postponed, at great expense, for four years until 2016. We would like to hear assurances from both Front Benches that no such situation will ever be allowed to arise again.

Grant Shapps: I am pleased to reassure my right hon. Friend from this Front Bench that no such delay would be countenanced. Just in the last few weeks we have issued the defence nuclear enterprise Command Paper—[Interruption.] I thought the Opposition Front Bench knew that there was a coalition Government, but perhaps they missed it. Perhaps they also missed the point that my right hon. Friend was making.

Richard Foord: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I can offer him the assurance that the Liberal Democrats embrace the continuous at-sea deterrent with four submarines. What is more, the strategic environment in which we were operating in 2010 was very different from that which we see today: the Liberal Democrats made the right call then, and we have made the right call now.

Grant Shapps: You heard it here first, Madam Deputy Speaker. I warmly welcome that commitment, which was not available under the then coalition Government. It is an important moment, and I welcome that commitment from the hon. Gentleman, as I welcome it from  Labour.
I gently remind the House that 11 Opposition Front Benchers have voted against the deterrent in their time here, including three members of the current shadow Cabinet, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, the shadow Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Secretary, and the shadow Deputy Prime Minister. The House is right to ask, and the country will want to know, whether that commitment is as firm as we now hear it is from the Liberal Democrats. It will also want to know, even if the commitment is said to be firm, whether Labour is prepared to fund it. Again, it comes back to the 2.5%.

John Spellar: Can we be clear that, as was kindly referenced by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), that situation was the result of a failure of political judgment and will by David Cameron? He could have said to the Liberal Democrats, “This is a matter of strategic national interest. If you don’t like it, you can give up your jobs and walk out of the Government.” They would have bottled it. The fact was that we lost six years and a huge amount of money, and we are putting CASD at real risk with enormously elongated tours of duty for our tremendous submariners.

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman wants to relitigate the past, but I think we all agree that we cannot do anything about it. I want to talk about the future, and the future is that those on his own side have yet to commit to the 2.5% that is required to ensure that our nuclear deterrent can deliver on time. In March the Prime Minister and I published the defence nuclear enterprise Command Paper, setting out our long-held and unshakeable commitment to our own independent nuclear deterrent.

Mark Francois: I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s desire to look forward rather than back but, just for the record, does he remember, as I do, that at one point the Liberal Democrat policy on Trident was to maintain the submarines but to send them to sea without any missiles?

Grant Shapps: I will be as diplomatic as possible: the Liberal Democrats asked us to investigate a range of options, and I am very pleased that the one we ended up with was the four-submarine continuous at-sea deterrent.
We are investing £41 billion in our next generation of the Dreadnought fleet, and investing in our replacement UK sovereign nuclear warhead as well.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State mentioned the Command Paper. Page 89, in paragraph 10, refers to
“protecting ourselves…against attack from the skies”.
We know from what has happened in Ukraine, and more recently in Israel, how important our air defence missile system is. The Command Paper continues:
“To counter these threats, we will step up our efforts to deliver an Integrated Air and Missile Defence approach.”
Can the Secretary of State tell us where we are with that?

Grant Shapps: I should point out that there are a wide number of differences for us, because within Nato—this relates to article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty—we are in a different region from, for example, Israel, which was recently attacked. We have a number of layered approaches to defending our skies, including the quick reaction alert. However, the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that we are working with our European friends and allies on a European sky shield to do something along the lines of what he has described. It should be understood, however, that there are considerations regardless of which direction we take, because, again, the money can only be spent once, and we would have to consider what else we were or were not going to achieve in defence. So we use a layered approach, but we are actively working on exactly what the Command Paper describes.

John Spellar: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Grant Shapps: I am a little concerned about not giving others an opportunity to contribute, but I will allow the right hon. Gentleman one last intervention.

John Spellar: Was the Secretary of State not a member of the Government, and indeed chairman of the Conservative party, during the period we are discussing when the Government did not renew Trident?

Grant Shapps: I think the right hon. Gentleman will now understand why I was so pleased to trounce the Liberal Democrats when it came to that election—to squeeze them out of government and ensure that we could get on with Trident as we always wanted to. I encourage his party to join us in that commitment, backed up with money—not just photo-opportunities in Barrow, but money to deliver the nuclear deterrent.
I now want to make some progress. I want to talk about Putin’s war, and the way in which it has underlined the vital role of conventional forces. From the Red sea to the skies over Iraq, our armed forces are already doing incredible work globally in protecting and advancing our interests every day. In the ongoing Exercise Steadfast Defender, they are currently making up 20% of this year’s NATO exercise, itself the largest since the cold war. I have been to visit some of them in Poland.
We are investing £8.6 billion in Army equipment during this decade to make our ground forces more integrated, agile and lethal. That includes the new Boxer and the long-awaited Ajax armoured fighting vehicles, as well as the new Challenger 3 tanks, of which I saw the second prototype come off the production line in Telford just last month—the first British-made tank for 22 years.
Our United Kingdom is at its strongest when we stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, and therefore our commitment to NATO will only ever increase. That is why it is so important that we have been prepared to set out how to get to 2.5%. At the 2014 NATO summit at Newport in Wales, we set a target of 2% to be reached by this year; we are now extending that to 2.5%, and we invite other countries to join us.
NATO has become stronger because of Putin’s actions in Ukraine. It has added members: two new members have joined us, and we therefore outgun Putin on every single metric. We have three times as many submarines and fighter jets, four times as many tanks, helicopters and artillery pieces, four and a half times as many warships, six times as many armed vehicles, eight times as many transport carriers and 16 times as many aircraft carriers. But it is important that NATO works together and sticks together. It is also important that we send a signal to NATO that the second biggest spender in absolute terms intends to increase that expenditure—that has been widely welcomed by other NATO members that I have spoken to in the past couple of weeks.
The importance of that iron-clad alliance is the third lesson of Putin’s war. Since 2022, we have worked hard with our NATO partners to enlarge the alliance and bolster its eastern flank. We have also worked hard with our closest partners on a range of top-end procurement programmes, from sixth-generation combat jets with Italy and Japan to cutting-edge nuclear-powered submarines with Australia and the United States.
The fourth lesson of Putin’s war is that the battle in Ukraine has needed ever more innovation—new tech, new drones. As we ramp up our defence spending to 2.5%, we will put high-tech innovation right at the heart of our plans. I recently visited the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and we agreed to ringfence 5% of the defence budget for research and development over the next year, and to improve our strategic defence research.

Bob Seely: As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, the Royal Navy’s radars are made in Cowes on the Isle of Wight. Can we please have a radar strategy for a new generation of radar, and not just for the Royal Navy but for the RAF and ballistic missile defence?

Rosie Winterton: Before the Secretary of State comes in, I am slightly conscious that 13 Back Benchers have indicated that they wish to make speeches, so there will be an impact on the length of those speeches if we are not careful.

Grant Shapps: I will be less generous with interventions and will rattle through the remaining important content for our military services.
We are building on the recent defence drone strategy and our £4.6 billion investment in uncrewed technologies over the next decade. As we discussed earlier, AI and other tech advances are transforming the way warfare is fought, and our pan-defence procurement reforms have enabled a speeding up of our ability to deliver new technology. I have mentioned DragonFire several times at the Dispatch Box, and it will be delivered five years early.
Fifthly and finally, Putin’s war in Ukraine has underlined the need for all NATO allies to rebuild their stockpiles and grow their defence industrial base. To keep our defence production lines running, we have reformed the procurement process to prioritise exportability from day one. That is now an accredited part of UK production when we make procurement decisions. Our £75 billion boost for defence includes an additional £10 billion to produce even larger stockpiles of munitions over the next decade. That gives certainty to industry and boosts our regions.
Defence supports hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK, and the boost for defence will provide even more opportunities—opportunities for apprentices and for seasoned engineers. Those jobs would be at risk if the path to 2.5% were not followed, so it is very important that we give that commitment to our defence personnel. We undertake to do that, but we will go further: we will also invest £4 billion in military accommodation, because we recognise that retention, as well as recruitment, is so important. That £4 billion would not exist without the increase to 2.5%. We are also ensuring that there are wraparound childcare services for service families and the service pupil premium.
I thank—as I know the whole House will—the committed, professional and courageous members of our armed forces for everything they do for us in more difficult times. They keep us safe. We are backing them with more money and, in a more dangerous world, I think that is the right thing to do. As I go to Washington  with the Prime Minister for the NATO summit in July, we will be saying to other NATO countries, “Follow our example. Follow us because it is the right thing to do and because it is cheaper and more effective than waiting for wars and conflicts to break out.” I encourage other Members of this House to follow us.

John Healey: I welcome this defence debate in Government time. The defence and security of Britain is an increasing public concern in this country. You said that 13 Members had put in to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to each and every one of those contributions. We have pulled in some of the very best in this House on defence for this debate.
I start by paying tribute to our UK armed forces, who are in action defending international shipping in the Red sea, reinforcing NATO allies on the Russian border and protecting all of us in Britain 24/7. Our forces are respected for their total professionalism worldwide. They have a right to expect our full support, on both sides of this House, and in this defence debate they will get it.
This is an era of increasing threats to our UK security, our prosperity and our values. To deal with this more dangerous world, we need a new era for UK defence to deter threats, to defend the country and to defeat attacks. Over the next decade, we face an alliance of aggression from autocrats who have contempt for international law and freely squander the lives of their own people. With Putin’s war in Europe now into its third brutal year, the Ukrainians, civilians and military alike, are fighting with huge courage. They have regained half the territory taken by Putin and disabled his Black sea fleet, but Russia shows resurgent strength, with its economy now on a wartime footing and its Government spending 30% of their total budget on the military.
I am proud that the UK is united for Ukraine. In response to the Secretary of State’s invitation, the Opposition give our full backing to the Government’s increased UK military aid for this year and following years, as well as to the long-term UK-Ukraine security co-operation agreement. Let us take the politics out of this country’s backing for Ukraine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said to President Zelensky in Kyiv, while there may be a change of Government at the election, there will be no change in Britain’s resolve to support Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
That is because the first duty of any Government is to keep the nation safe and protect our citizens. The defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. If Putin wins, he will not stop at Ukraine. I say very clearly that Labour will always do what is needed and spend what is needed on defence. When Labour was last in government in 2010, Britain was indeed spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, the British Army had over 100,000 full-time troops and satisfaction with service life was at 60%.

Bob Seely: The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) has done really good work with me on the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, and I pay him credit for that. Whenever we take folks to Ukraine, we try to take as many from the Opposition side of the House as from the Government side. The right hon.  Gentleman says that he will do whatever needs to be done, but expenditure requires long-term planning, so I just want to confirm for the record that he is saying that he will meet the £15 billion of expenditure that the Secretary of State has outlined and the £75 billion of expenditure the Secretary of State has outlined for the growth of the armed services budget.

John Healey: I will come on to the £75 billion in a bit, but the hon. Gentleman asked about Ukraine. The Government’s increase in military aid for this year and following years has Labour’s full support. Every commitment of UK military aid since Putin invaded has had Labour’s fullest support; that will continue.
We in the Labour party have deep roots in defending this country. Throughout the last century, it has been working men and women who have served on the frontline, fighting and sometimes dying for Britain. It was Labour that established NATO and the British nuclear deterrent—commitments that are unshakeable for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras as Labour leader and for everyone who serves on the Labour Front Bench.
We are a party with deep pride in forging international law and security—the Geneva conventions, the universal declaration of human rights, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty were all signed by Labour Prime Ministers—and we are a party with deep respect for the serving men and women of our armed forces. Theirs is the ultimate public service. They defend the country. They are essential to our national resilience at home.

Tim Farron: I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman is saying and echo his support for the Government’s backing of Ukraine. Does he agree that perhaps over the last 25 years, across both sides of the House—I will take my own share of responsibility for this—and maybe across the west as a whole, we have been complacent about the post-cold war situation and about the fragility or vitality of our defence of western liberal democracy?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one way to demonstrate that we have understood that we are now in a different place is to reverse the cuts to our armed forces? Backing our soldiers—our men and women who put themselves in harm’s way—involves backing them with the resources to increase their numbers and to get the size of the Army up to, say, 100,000, so that we can demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are serious about standing shoulder to shoulder with our NATO colleagues and defending democracy and freedom around the world.

John Healey: I agree with the hon. Gentleman only to a point. In his speech to the House, the Defence Secretary set out the range of increasing threats that this country and our allies now face. Those threats are very different from those of 14 years ago, so it is not simply a question of reversing the cuts that we have seen in recent years; it is a question of matching the requirements needed for the future with the threats that we face.

James Gray: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that defence has to be a consensual matter. All the work I have done with  the Labour Front-Bench team has been very consensual, because they have talked a great deal of sense. Every single thing that the shadow Secretary of State has said this afternoon could easily have been said by a Conservative Secretary of State—there is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Will he therefore continue that worthwhile cross-party consensus by agreeing to match our defence spending commitment of 2.5% of GDP?

John Healey: We share the ambition to hit 2.5%. Our commitment to 2.5% is total. We will do it in our own way and we will do it as soon as we can. I will come on to the flaws in the plan set out by those on the Government Front Bench.

James Gray: The right hon. Gentleman is extremely generous to give way again. There is a very important difference here. Ours is an absolute 100% cast-iron guaranteed pledge to spend 2.5%. Will he match that?

John Healey: I am afraid there is nothing cast-iron about the figures, the plan or, indeed, the proposals for paying for it. I will come to that in a moment.
Before I took the first intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), I wanted to pick up a final point that was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on the question of reviewing what we need to face the threats that we now face. The Defence Secretary is dismissive about the need for a strategic defence review, despite the fact that his own Department is preparing for exactly that, whatever the result of the next election. That was confirmed in the House last month by the Minister for Defence Procurement. He also made the point a month before, when the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) talked about a defence review and the Minister for Defence Procurement said,
“he makes an excellent point.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 27.]
The problem for the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, who was involved in the five years of coalition government after 2010, and the problem for the Conservative Front-Bench team, who have been in government for the past 14 years, is that people judge Governments on what they do, not on what they say.
The Defence Secretary mentioned his January speech at Lancaster House, and he is right when he argues that what we do on defence sends signals to the world. What signal does it send to Britain’s adversaries when our armed forces have been hollowed out and underfunded since 2010, as his predecessor admitted in this House last year? What signal does it send to our adversaries when defence spending has been cut from 2.5% under Labour to 2.3% now, when day-to-day defence budgets have been cut by £10 billion since 2010, and when the British Army has now been cut to its smallest size since Napoleon?

Kevan Jones: The present Defence Secretary was chair of the Conservative party until 2016. Is it not also a fact that, when the Conservative party was in coalition government, it cut the defence budget by 18% and not only reduced the size of the Army but made people compulsorily redundant? Had a Labour Government done that, we would have heard howls and cries from Conservative Members.

John Healey: I said a moment ago that Governments and Ministers are judged by what they do, not by what they say. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and independent Library figures confirm that 18% cut in defence spending over the first five-year Government led by the Conservatives after 2010.
What signal does it send to our adversaries that defence procurement has been condemned by the Public Accounts Committee as “broken,” that at least £15 billion of taxpayers’ money has been wasted through MOD mismanagement, and that procurement delays to Ajax and Wedgetail are putting our NATO commitments at risk? What signal does it send to our adversaries when forces’ recruitment targets have been missed each and every year for the past 14 years, when satisfaction with service life and morale have fallen to record lows, and when military families live in damp housing and use food banks to get by?
Even after Putin invaded Ukraine, this Government cut a further 4,000 troops from the British Army, took 287 days to sign a new contract to replace the NLAW anti-tank missiles to restock our armed forces and, according to the National Audit Office, created a £17 billion black hole—the biggest ever—in the defence equipment plan this year. It is no wonder the Secretary of State wants to talk about the future, not the past. This is the Tory record of 14 years of failure on defence. Our armed forces simply cannot afford another five years of the Conservatives.
Let me say again that people judge Governments by what they do, not by what they say. The Defence Secretary now thinks he has the answer to every problem—a magic wand, a get-out-of-jail-free card—but the Prime Minister’s announcement last month that the Conservatives will raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 is of course the same level that this country spent with Labour in 2010. Boris Johnson made the same promise two years earlier, and the Conservatives have not delivered it in any of the five Budgets or autumn statements since. None hit 2.5%, none reversed the real cuts in resource spending and none matched Labour’s record.
Everyone recognises that defence spending must rise to deal with increasing threats. We share the same ambition as the Government, and we are totally committed to spending 2.5% on defence. We want a plan that is fully costed and fully funded in Government budgets. Our armed forces deserve no less.

Bob Seely: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mark Francois: rose—

John Healey: I will give way to two of his colleagues who have not yet intervened on me, and then I am sure I will come back to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).

Mark Francois: Governments should be judged not by what they say, but by what they do. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wedgetail. If Labour were in government, would it specifically commit to going back to the original five Wedgetail AEW aircraft, rather than the three that are now on order? Is that what Labour would not say, but do?

John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulty of serving in this House and debating defence issues from the Opposition Benches. He knows we simply will not have access to the classified information on threats, the capabilities we need, the state of the armed forces or even the true state of public finances until we open the books. Those are the sort of decisions that we will make in a strategic defence review within the first year of a new Labour Government. That is the way that we will balance the requirements for national security with the responsibilities for sound public finances.

Bob Seely: Is there not a simple problem here, though? Labour may be committing to a defence review, but that review will take nine or 10 months—maybe a year. That simply means that it avoids spending or matching those increases for a period of at least 18 months. That is a significant problem.

John Healey: I think the hon. Gentleman needs to have a word with those on his own Front Bench, because the Department is at the moment planning a fresh review, whatever the outcome—[Interruption.] Yes, it is, whatever the outcome of the election. The problem for the hon. Gentleman is that the 2030 target is not in the Government’s financial plans; it is in a press release. We cannot rebuild the UK’s armed forces, let long-term procurement contracts, deter those who threaten us or defeat Putin with press releases. If this 2030 plan had been in a Budget, it would have been independently checked, openly costed and fully funded, but it is not and it was not. There are more holes in the Defence Secretary’s numbers than there is in Emmental cheese. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called the £75 billion figure “essentially meaningless”. The Institute for Government has said that the Conservatives’ 2.5% plan does not add up, and that cutting 70,000 civil servant jobs will get nowhere close to delivering the savings needed to fund 2.5%.
To produce his fake figure of £75 billion, the Secretary of State has invented a zero-growth baseline for the next six years, unlike and in contrast with the Treasury’s official 0.5% real annual growth baseline. To get 2.3% as a different baseline for the annual increases in his plan on page 20 in the annex of his report, which he likes to parade, he has added all the one-off spending this year to the defence core budget—that is £3 billion for Ukraine, £1 billion for the nuclear contingency, half a billion pounds for operations and £300 million for ammunition, all in the figures for each of the next six years. Finally, the Secretary of State has used a trick that the Government tried before, in the 2015 defence strategic review, when Ministers pledged to cut 30% of MOD civil servants just to make their spending plans add up. However, after 2015 and that plan, civil service numbers in the MOD of course did not go down to 41,000; they went up to 63,000.
The new promised increase to defence core budgets will not start until April next year. For the next 10 months, day-to-day budgets in real terms are still being cut, the Army is still being cut and recruitment targets are still being missed. Nine out of 10 of the veterans promised a veterans ID card by the end of last year are still missing out, and around 500 veteran households are being made homeless every three months.
Our armed forces cannot afford another five years of the Conservatives. With threats increasing and tensions growing, we must make Britain better defended. Labour’s plan for defence will reinforce homeland protections with a new strategic review. [Interruption.] It will fulfil NATO obligations in full, with a NATO test on our major programmes.

James Sunderland: On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Healey: I am finishing off now; the hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak.
Labour’s plan will renew the nation’s contract with those who have served through an independent forces commissioner. It will make allies our strategic strength, with new French, German and EU defence agreements, and renewed UK leadership within the AUKUS alliance. It will direct British defence investment first to British jobs with deep procurement reform. Labour is the real party of defence. With Labour, Britain will be better defended.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Jeremy Quin: As both Front Benchers have made clear, we are all in this place indebted to the hard work of our armed forces personnel. Alas, we live in a dangerous world. The optimism that followed the fall of the Berlin wall and China joining the World Trade Organisation has proved illusory. The Defence Committee is currently investigating the grey zone: the gathering of intelligence, the manoeuvring for advantage, the pressurising of independent states, the disruption of democratic processes and the deployment of proxies. Into that category can be placed the hack of the defence payroll discussed earlier today, which follows the hack of our electoral data.
However, those are simply symptoms of a much wider pattern of step-by-step aggression. If, at a future date, our adversaries were to step over the threshold into kinetic warfare, no one could argue that we had not been warned. For any who believed that the modern world was too sophisticated, nuanced and interdependent ever to consider the brute force of state-on-state aggression, least of all in Europe, their delusions were shattered in February 2022. As we speak, in Ukraine hundreds of thousands of people are engaged in the gallant defence of their homes and families from an autocratic aggressor operating on the simple mantra that “might is right”.
In our last defence debate, I called on the Government to recognise the current threat by setting out a clear path to increasing the UK’s defence investment to 2.5% of GDP. The announcement of just that trajectory is most welcome. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence on that achievement and on the vital additional support to Ukraine. It is all the more welcome that that increase was not achieved by some hockey-stick projection of what will happen in five years’ time, but is being realised on a linear basis, with a step up each year. That provides credibility and certainty of delivery, and will send a message to our adversaries and a clear message to British industry that we need it to invest in capital equipment, skills and innovation.
The announcement also sends a powerful message to another critical group: our NATO allies. We are celebrating 75 years as the most effective and successful defence alliance the world has known. As the Secretary of State referenced, it remains the case that NATO enjoys, on paper, a substantial overmatch in matériel against Russia. That is well and good, but NATO must constantly up its game. Russia has shown itself oblivious in its tactics to the human cost of its devastating war in Ukraine. Against that backdrop, it is essential that we maintain a substantial conventional overmatch, especially in deep fires and ensuring air superiority, with the stockpiles to maintain it. We need to continue to do so, notwithstanding Russia spending eye-watering amounts to replace their losses in Ukraine with more modern equipment.
NATO also needs to ensure that military capabilities recognise the new geopolitical realities, namely the close relationship between China, Russia and other potential aggressors: North Korea, with its nuclear capability, and Iran, with its regional proxies looking to seize opportunities from the distracted west. A clash, were it to come, could come simultaneously from multiple quarters. Europe must recognise the implications of that and pull its weight.
When I spoke last, I said that I found it hard to believe we would not end up feeling the need to invest up to 3% of GDP, but that any such decision should be based on a bottom-up analysis of necessary capabilities. It will also be influenced by one other critical factor, which is that the increase in our commitment should be noted not just by our adversaries and our industry, but by our allies. NATO must set a new benchmark of 2.5% to reflect the new realities. That additional £140 billion of defence investment across the alliance would go a long way to reassuring us all that defence is receiving across this continent—a continent in which a live war rages—the greater priority it demands.
This debate is a general debate on defence. Members may wish to tackle a whole range of issues, each of which would be worthy of a parliamentary debate in its own right. To name but a few such themes, there is the balance, given the announced new investment, between the current equipment plan and innovative weapon systems emerging from the Ukraine war; the role of the Royal Navy, the balance of its current commitments, the shipbuilding programme and the continuous at-sea deterrence; the modernisation of the Army, particularly its armoured components; the increased prevalence of unmanned aerial systems, the importance to the Royal Air Force and the industrial base of the global combat air programme, and our future role in the space domain; and our home defence, to which the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) alluded earlier. When I asked the Prime Minister whether, post the failed Iranian attack on Israel, we would be reviewing the need for a multilayered UK air defence, that was because I believe we should. Increasingly, citizens will be vulnerable not just to land-based missile or drone attack, but from the same from vessels at sea, with limited warnings.
These are all valid areas of debate, but I want to restrict my remarks not to those internal defence debates, important though each is, but to the wider issue of how, in a much darker world, defence needs to be working with our allies across Government and with broader society as a whole. Arguments are being made that, in the circumstances, our full focus and commitment must  be to Europe. Strengthening our ability to play what would be a vital role in that theatre is of course necessary, as the Committee’s report “Ready for War?” set out. However, we have strong continental allies with land-based and land-focused forces, and the contest of the future will be determined not by a stand-off in eastern Europe alone; as in earlier eras, the search for resources, for critical minerals and for dominance of sea routes will remain.
We have influence and we are trusted in many parts of the world. We have genuine friends, a concept unknown to our adversaries. Our role in supporting our allies—for example, in competing with an expansionary China—may lie not in the South China sea, but on the coasts of Africa, in the Gulf and in the high north. We should not lightly neglect the assets we have. In particular, our history has provided us with geographical reach and a position that our adversaries would love to usurp. As senior US military and naval officers are not slow to remind us, UK bases overseas remain absolutely vital, not least Diego Garcia. We must be deeply protective of assets with so much strategic value in protecting the free world, including supporting regional allies.
There is also how defence is viewed inside Government. For anyone who has had the privilege of the serving as a Defence Minister, and I am delighted to say that there are many of us on the Defence Committee, the picture is familiar: the darkened room, probably Cobra, with the ominous description of whatever dire visitation is expected, be it fire, flood, plague, strike or even the failure of security baggage checkers, and all faces turn in our direction. There will always be a requirement for MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests and the military will always rise to the task, but it should not be called upon as often as it is. Our armed forces must be training and preparing for their tasks, and their rest and recuperation time is critical if we are to retain and recruit. Departments must be more resilient in peacetime, and must have in place plans for worst-case scenarios, including war, as was once the case, and these should be checked and should be exercised.
Lastly, there is defence working alongside society. In the quarter of a century in which our own national defence appeared to be assured, our ability to think holistically about the strategic interplay between all aspects of our society and how that can help keep us safe has atrophied. Defence cannot be put into a discrete box; we need to think clearly about long-term national plans and how they support our resilience.
I will name just a few examples. The skills agenda on nuclear is commendable. With no disrespect to our Liberal Democrat friends, these are very long-term commitments—we cannot play the hokey-cokey with nuclear. It is a long-term endeavour, so that skills agenda is incredibly important, but are we doing enough to set out exactly what cash will be invested in upgrading our scientific capability? Are our plans for small modular reactors being driven at the pace we require, not just to minimise costs but to appreciate swiftly all the implications that that new technology may unleash? Given the undoubted brilliance of UK research, are we doing everything we can to ensure we are spotting the crossover opportunities? We can be certain that our adversaries are using every possible avenue into that UK research.  When ideas move from research to production, are we calling out those who make—often cavalierly and without proper consideration—trite judgments on what may be ethical or unethical investment, and in doing so are undermining our ability to live in a society where such a debate can even take place?
There has been some commentary in the press about peacetime conscription. While I welcome the honesty of sharing worst-case scenarios and the focus on increased investment in defence that that has brought, I personally view the idea as misplaced, but I would make an observation. In the coming decades, we risk skill pinch points in critical areas of defence. They are the very areas that are at the forefront of technology, and therefore at the forefront of demand in the private sector. Are we doing enough to identify brilliant young men and women, and setting out a specific and unique path for them to enter His Majesty’s armed forces for a limited period post university? Some may wish to stay longer term; others may join the reserves. That would require a different approach. The Government would have to consider a whole raft of inducements, including financial ones, but we should not overlook the willingness of young people to accept fascinating challenges and to serve if called on to do so. Done well, that cadre would be recognised by industry as having been hand-picked as the leading lights of their generation, and with among the most sought-after of skillsets, they may even provide the impetus to the zig-zag careers proposed by the Haythornthwaite review.
We need to invest: in innovation, in capital equipment, and in the men and women of our armed forces. I am pleased that the Government are doing just that. It is vital, it is timely, and every penny must be well spent.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martin Docherty: I am glad to be in the Chamber for this debate. It is an important debate; those of us on the Defence Committee would probably say that we do not have them often enough.
I wanted to pick up on a point made by the right hon. Members—my right hon. Friends, I hope—for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) about the reduction in defence spend, and the discussion we had at the Select Committee recently. As is our duty as a Committee, we challenged the Secretary of State on expenditure, and I wanted to pinpoint one specific issue, which relates to people—at least for us on the SNP Benches, people are the bedrock of a defence policy and posture—and to concerns about defence infrastructure and security, especially for those of us who live around nuclear defence infrastructure. We might not necessarily agree with it, but it is there, so we would hope it is secure at all times.
Coming back to the point that my right hon. Friends made, I wanted to look at some specific concerns about the Ministry of Defence police budget. In 2010-2011, the defence police budget was £154.8 million, equating to £226.78 million today when adjusted for inflation. Right hon. and hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong, but I think there was a Labour Government at that point. However, the budget in 2022-23 was  £161.3 million. Leading back to the question posed at the Committee, that is a real-terms reduction of about £65.5 million in the defence police infrastructure over the past 12 years. That is something that Ministers might want to come back to later on.
The shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), made some comments about the £75 billion, and I share his concern. Like me, he understands that the assumption from the Government is based on a baseline of spend, as a percentage of GDP, that is frozen in cash terms, so without borrowing or extra debt, it comes nowhere near £75 billion. I wish the Government well on that point.
I would maybe want to have a wee bit more of a conciliatory approach to this. There will be at least some consistency from the SNP Benches, which I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Although he and I have different views on the nuclear deterrent, we are at least consistent. It was quite interesting to see someone else getting taken over the barrel for that—it makes a change. On the commitment to Ukraine, the Minister can take it from the SNP that, whoever the Government happen to be this year or next year, say, we will also be steadfast on the support for Ukraine. The right to defend national territory, and the right to national self-determination, are elements of human dignity for any modern nation state and alliance. As I said, the gist of my remarks is in three things: people, place and our partnerships.
Let us talk about the ordinary ranks. That is a term that I find quite problematic. I come from a services family. My brother was a sergeant, and my nephew is in the forces as well—in the “ordinary ranks”. There is really nothing ordinary in serving.

Richard Foord: I think the term is “other ranks.”

Martin Docherty: Let me come to that in a second, but in common parlance, I think they are always called the “ordinary ranks”—[Interruption.] The Minister may want to listen for a wee second. Whether it is “other” or “ordinary”, that type of terminology says nothing about the men and women who served in Iraq, such as my brother; in Afghanistan; out in the Red sea, no matter what happens there—and there is concern that there might be mission creep—or in other deployments such as the joint expeditionary force in Estonia, which I know, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Estonia, that the Estonian Government welcome.
Those ranks deserve more from us—not just from the Government and the official Opposition, but from all of us as parliamentarians. They deserve it that we take them more seriously in the structure of how we support and pay them, and in their entire terms and conditions. I know that there is probably profound disagreement about my approach, which would be an armed services representative body. Although I am saddened that the official Opposition changed their position, if they form the next Government, the SNP would support their new approach, which we think is at least a step in the right direction.
However, I do not think that having a Government appointee represent the armed forces personnel is the right step forward, because the lived experience of members of the armed forces who have been on the frontline needs to form part of an understanding, as with any engagement on terms and conditions with a trade union,  for example—although an armed forces representative body from this party is not a trade union and does not have the right to strike our proposals. We have to say to those ranks that we believe they can come together as a collective and have critical engagement with Government and, more importantly, with Parliament more broadly. We need to have that discussion with them; they need to be part of defence policy and posture. They are people we want to send to the frontline to fire a gun or a missile, but technically we are saying to them that we do not believe they have the capability of coming together to discuss and debate collectively their terms and conditions. I find that slightly bizarre.
If we do not engage with those ranks in a more robust fashion, as equals, we will go around a consistent revolving door of reports, as we have seen for years in Committees, especially the Defence Committee. I am mindful of the report produced by the Women in the Armed Forces Sub-Committee—I intimated that I would mention them—which was chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who is not here today. That report was profound. Do I think that if we do not have real engagement with the frontline, there will be substantial change? I have grave concerns that there will not be.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that close engagement with the other ranks. He might well benefit from serving on the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, where he will discover that all of our time is spent with the other ranks.

Martin Docherty: I am grateful for that opportunity, but I have previously declined it for various reasons. I will get into that in a wee bit more detail and, although the hon. Member may not agree with me, I may want to reflect on some of the profound experiences that we saw in that report. I am afraid that we would not hear those things talked about on the armed forces parliamentary body. I am talking about ordinary service personnel, in private meetings with parliamentarians as part of a Committee inquiry, talking about the dreadful conditions that they suffer because of their gender, sex, sexuality or ethnicity. Some of it has been like a revolving door.

James Sunderland: I spent 27 years of commissioned service in the British Army. The hon. Member does the British Army a disservice.

Martin Docherty: I recall the hon. Gentleman chairing the Armed Forces Bill Committee during the pandemic, when we heard some really profound and challenging evidence. I do not think that he and I would disagree that it was challenging. The report from the hon. Member for Wrexham, a former reservist, was challenging. It was the bare reality of what many members of the armed forces had to go through. I am sure that he was in the Chamber when members of Pride were here to hear the Prime Minister’s apology to LGBT members of the services. That happened; it is not a figment of the imagination. It does not say anything about the abilities and capabilities of the vast majority of the armed forces.
To me it is more about the structure. How different it would be if we had a body in which members of the armed forces, elected by their peers, could engage with any Government in the future. We would then be in a  far better position to have that debate and to actually target support where it is needed. I have not yet heard a convincing argument against that.
I am glad that the official Opposition have a policy on this matter. It might not be one that I think is appropriate, but it is a reflection that the time has now come to have some type of body to take up that physical challenge. I believe that their example is from Germany, but I am also mindful of the example of the Kingdom of the Netherlands—one of our closest military allies—where a member of the armed forces could also be the general secretary of a trade union. Having a distinct armed forces trade union does not stop them carrying out their duties as members of the armed forces.
One or two of our NATO allies have unions and actually have the right to strike, although that is not somewhere I would be going in terms of policy. I just think that having such a union is critical, given some of the conditions that members of the armed forces and their families have faced over many years. We have heard about them in Select Committee reports, in debates on housing and in statements. My friend the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talked about Capita and some of the profound problems that members of the armed forces face on a daily basis. I honestly believe that they would be in a far better position to deal with these challenges if they were able to come together and deliberate and engage with whoever the Government are.
It is important to reflect on some of our Scandinavian allies when it comes to a more coherent approach to how we go forward as parliamentarians, because this is not just about members of the armed forces; it is about the role of Parliament as well. I have heard Members talk about having a more collegiate approach. Were we to follow the Danish or Swedish examples—this could be done whether or not the Government have a huge majority—it would mean that for an entire parliamentary term we could have an agreed military defence posture and an agreed budget. We could bring the main parties together and make a collective parliamentary decision.
The Nordic-Scandinavian model means that there is a good foundation to create a robust defence posture, with full parliamentary support. Even we in the SNP would agree to that. We may disagree on the nuclear deterrent, but Parliament has voted for that. But on the vast majority of issues I think the vast majority of parties in this place could agree and support a Government, which is critical given that the times in which we live need a coherent approach and full and robust parliamentary support.
I do hope that both the Government and the official Opposition will consider that if and when the next election is called, and whoever should form the next Government. That brings people together. It is also about us as parliamentarians taking our responsibilities appropriately, and about creating transparency and openness. Even in the United States, there is far more transparent and robust engagement with the Government on Capitol Hill by the Armed Services Committee. Of course, our Defence Select Committee has no such powers, in any shape or form, but if we had more open and transparent engagement at parliamentary level, we could hopefully overcome a lot of that.
The other thing I want to talk about, in bringing my remarks to a conclusion, is partnership. I am really glad that the shadow Defence Secretary mentioned some partnerships in bringing his speech to a close. Since 2016, we on the SNP Benches have been pushing for a more coherent mutual defence agreement with the European Union. He will need to correct me if I am wrong and that was not a part of what he said in his concluding remarks. The reason for that is not to replace NATO, but to understand that some of the complexities that EU members face—for example, when it comes to logistics, road design and bridge weights—could be tackled far more easily through the EU in partnership than, say, through NATO. That is because if we are trying to move a tank from the west to the eastern front, it has to get across France, Germany and so on. [Interruption.] I will conclude my remarks in a moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I say that as a Euro-Atlanticist. It is really important that we create defence relationships with people who share our common interests here in the Euro-Atlantic area, because, as others have mentioned, we face a crisis of retention, a crisis of recruitment and unfathomable black holes that I would not wish on any Defence Secretary, whether the present one or anybody who wants to be one. The next Government will face unimaginable tasks, but if we put people, place and partnership at the heart of that, we in the SNP—although with our differences on the nuclear deterrent—would certainly be willing to support that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call Mark Francois, I remind colleagues that there is a certain pressure on time, which I am sure will be borne in mind.

Mark Francois: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to participate in this important and timely debate on defence. It comes at an exciting time for defence, following the Prime Minister’s welcome announcement that we will now increase the UK’s defence spending from a little over 2% of GDP at present—more if we include Ukraine —to 2.5% by the end of the decade. Moreover, that welcome increase is linear in nature, rather than the traditionally back-loaded version, so it provides a solid path against which both our armed forces and our defence industry can appropriately plan.
As ever with these announcements, my colleagues on the House of Commons Defence Committee will want to scrutinise in detail the Secretary of State’s claim that that represents an additional £75 billion for defence over the period. A lot seems to depend on where we draw the baseline in making the calculation. Nevertheless, the declared increase to 2.5% indisputably represents billions of pounds of extra investment over the six years in question, which helps to send a powerful signal both to our allies and to any potential aggressors that the United Kingdom is prepared to defend itself, its values and its interests, both across the globe and at home.
Allied to that, we also had the recent announcement by our very proactive Minister for Defence Procurement of a wholescale reform of how the UK plans to procure  its military equipment in future. The new system, known as the integrated procurement model, was announced in February. If I were asked to characterise it in one sentence, I would say that it represents moving from a bureaucratic peacetime model of procuring equipment to a much faster wartime model. Indeed, in Poland the Prime Minister spoke powerfully about putting the UK defence industry on to a war footing. That is very much in keeping with the Secretary of State’s speech at Lancaster House in January, in which he said that we are now moving from a post-war to a pre-war world—about which I fear he may yet be proven right.
Taken together, this suggests that after years of concentrating on wars of choice—in Iraq or Afghanistan —we are now again focusing on the possibility of having to fight a war of necessity, and perhaps even, ultimately, a war of national survival against an adversary on the scale of Russia and/or China.
For someone who has always believed that the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, I warmly welcome what one might call this new type of clear-eyed realism, which now seems to be infusing our defence planning in a way that, at least with regard to wars of necessity, has arguably been absent for many decades. For instance, we are now recreating across Government a national defence plan, akin conceptually to what was considered everyday normal business during the cold war.
I hope that I am not betraying a confidence when I tell the House that the Minister for Defence Procurement and I, and others such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who is in his place beside me, have discussed several times the need not just to change policy in terms of procurement, but crucially to change culture if the reforms are to have real meaning.
I note that the dynamic head of Defence Equipment and Support, Andy Start, when speaking at the Royal United Services Institute recently, explained that the reforms began in March and that the operating model will reach what he calls a “minimal viable product” by the autumn, with the whole programme in full flow by next year. As someone who has previously expressed a great deal of frustration about the bureaucracy and tardiness of our procurement system, I can only wish the Minister for Defence Procurement and the head of DE&S Godspeed in implementing these reforms as fast as possible, particularly as the international outlook continues to worsen. We urgently need a sense of urgency, as it were, and it appears that, finally, we are starting to develop one.
All that said, I would like to highlight one area in which I believe we still remain both operationally and strategically vulnerable: the realm of air defence. Given the concentration, over more than 20 years, on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we effectively disinvested in the air defence of the United Kingdom relative to other priorities. I am pleased to note that in the last few years we have reinvested in some of our radar stations in Scotland and along the east coast, which I warmly welcome.
Nevertheless, the experience from Ukraine strongly suggests that if it were ever to come to a shooting war with Russia, which has made great use of mass cruise missile strikes, most of those fixed radar sites would likely be lost to cruise missile attack in the first 24 to 48 hours of  hostilities, in addition to threats from ballistic missiles. Against that eventuality, we retain a small number of mobile radars—the number is classified, but it is small. It is true that we might also be able to rely to some degree on NATO assets or other specialist assets from elsewhere, but certainly in terms of fixed NATO radar stations they might also be subject to the same cruise missile attacks, and the precious NATO airborne early warning and control system—AWACS—aircraft could be tasked elsewhere in war.
In terms of fighter aircraft for the defence of the UK, the Royal Air Force currently possesses 137 Typhoon aircraft in three tranches, the oldest of which—in tranche 1—are, on present policy, due to be retired in the spring of next year and either cannibalised for parts or sold off to foreign buyers, likely for a pittance compared to their initial acquisition cost. Considering that the Russian air force still possesses thousands of combat aircraft, that would be an act of absolute folly, and one that I personally have likened to selling off our Spitfires prior to the battle of Britain. As I was told by BAE Systems executives on a visit to Warton a few years ago, because of the extremely complex supply chain that goes into the manufacture of Typhoons, it would take at least four years to build one from scratch, or three years if, as they put it, we hurried it all up in an emergency. If, therefore, the UK were to fight what some strategists describe as a “come as you are” war, in which people have to fight with equipment that is immediately available or can be reconstituted at short notice, there would be no prospect of building additional Typhoons in time to fight.
Moreover, both Russia and China have had a long-standing policy over many decades of putting older equipment into a war reserve that can be drawn on in times of conflict to replenish stocks. That is exactly what the Russians did in the Ukrainian conflict, when they pulled mothballed tanks out of depots from as far away as Siberia, to make up for the very large number of losses of more modern fighting vehicles at the hands of very spirited Ukrainian defenders who, one might add, were armed in many cases with British manufactured NLAWs.
Conversely, the UK Ministry of Defence has virtually no concept of a war reserve, although events suggest that we should rapidly be developing one. As a comparator, the US keeps thousands of retired combat aircraft, some very recently retired, in a giant desert boneyard, as it is known, in the Mojave desert, in hot and high conditions where aircraft do not rust. The Americans regularly rehearse taking aircraft out of the stockpile and refurbishing them to return them to the frontline. It therefore seems to me that it would be madness to sell off over 20% of our fighter force. Surely it would make much greater sense to put those aircraft into storage, either in the UK or in the Mojave desert, to begin to constitute a warfighting reserve of our own.
Not only would that come at very little expense, but it would constitute a reserve air wing of up to three squadrons in time of war, not least as the Tranche 1 Typhoon, armed with advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and advanced short-range air-to-air missiles, is still more than a match for Russian long-range bombers, which might attempt to assault the UK via the back door over the north Atlantic, carrying multiple long-range cruise missiles.

John Spellar: Is it also the case that these aircraft have considerable aircraft life left in them? It is not as though they are approaching redundancy.

Mark Francois: The right hon. Gentleman, a former Armed Forces Minister like me, is absolutely right. Many of them still have half their so-called airframe life remaining. As I have said, they are more than capable of intercepting and shooting down the threat aircraft that they would have to match. That is all the more reason to keep them against a rainy day, rather than flogging them off or breaking them up for parts. Crucially, creating such a war reserve would demonstrate a sign of intent to any potential aggressor that after many years of doing the opposite, the UK is now preparing to fight a sustained conflict with a peer enemy, should that become necessary. Hopefully, in so doing, we will make that eventuality far less likely.
Linked to the vulnerability of our radar stations and the shortage of fighter aircraft are the extremely worrisome delays in airborne early warning. The Royal Navy’s early warning aircraft, Crowsnest, is many years late. It has only recently entered service for the air defence of the fleet. For the Royal Air Force, the Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft were withdrawn shortly after the integrated review was published in 2021, leaving us without a mainstream airborne early warning aircraft. The E-3 was meant to be replaced shortly thereafter by the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail, but the programme has been subject to multiple chronic delays and is still not in service.
The RAF is clearly embarrassed by this and is attempting to deploy chaff between in-service dates, when the aircraft could take off the runway, and an initial operating capability, when the aircraft might actually be ready to fight. The latest information I have is that the ISD could now be in autumn 2025, whereas the IOC could be in the first or even the second quarter of 2026, which is still two years away. That leaves a critical gap in our air defence capability for which the MOD, and Boeing in particular, must be held robustly to account. Moreover, the initial buy of five Wedgetail aircraft was inexplicably cut to three several years ago by ministerial fiat, even though we were contractually obliged to buy all five radars, which themselves were very expensive.
In short, the Boeing E-7 Wedgetail is rapidly becoming the RAF’s equivalent of the Army’s Ajax programme—a procurement disaster that has gone on year after year at vast expense to the taxpayer, without actually entering operational service, as Ajax still has not. The Defence Committee, alarmed by that, has invited the head of Boeing Defence, Space and Security, Mr Ted Colbert, to appear before the Committee at Westminster to provide an explanation, although we are still attempting to finalise a precise date for his personal appearance.
Boeing is an organisation in crisis after the sad deaths of more than 300 people caused by the two crashes of its 737 MAX aircraft. We have seen further serious safety incidents, most recently in January when a door flew off an Alaska Boeing 737 MAX 9 in mid-flight. That incident was followed by a number of so-called whistleblowers, involved either at Boeing or in its supply chain, coming forward with very serious allegations about failures in the way the company builds its aircraft. No doubt partly as a result, Mr Dave Calhoun announced that he will step down as chief executive at the end of  the year. In the first quarter of this year, Boeing reported a net loss of more than $350 million, and it is still experiencing serious production problems across a range of aircraft, both civilian and military, of which the UK Wedgetail is but one example. The US Air Force also has numerous issues with Boeing, not least in its much-troubled KC-46 air tanker programme.
For many years, Boeing as a company has done extremely well in winning major multibillion dollar procurement orders from the MOD, in return for which it has placed very limited amounts of work on those programmes with the defence industry in the UK. To give specific examples, according to the MOD’s recent figures, on the E-7 Wedgetail, the estimated UK content is around 10%; for the AH-64 Apache, it is only 7%; for the P-8 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft, it is barely 4%; and for the original CH-47 Chinook helicopters, it was just 2%. According to the answer to a written parliamentary question I tabled, the UK content for the new order of CH-47 extended-range Chinooks for our special forces will generate a UK workshare of about 8%. Taken together with the purchase of the Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic reconnaissance aircraft, for which no workshare figure is publicly available, that represents some $10 billion of business for Boeing from the UK MOD for which the UK workshare has been 10% at best and 2% at worst. Boeing has done incredibly well out of the UK MOD, while UK industry has done incredibly badly out of Boeing.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is also bad news for the defence budget? Those contracts are in dollars, and the dollar exchange rate puts huge pressure on the defence budget.

Mark Francois: Another former Armed Forces Minister is right, and he will know that the effect of the dollar exchange rate on buying so many big off-the-shelf items from the US has cropped up time and again at both the Defence Committee and the Public Accounts Committee.
The problem does not apply just to air platforms. Boeing had a major logistics contract with the MOD called the future logistics information system, or FLIS, which was due to run until late 2020. However, as was evidenced by the Public Accounts Committee, in late 2020 the MOD signed a five-year contract extension called “Bridging the gap”, worth £515 million to Boeing, which was not even competed. That raises questions about the degree to which the MOD seems to be mesmerised by Boeing as a company, to the detriment of value for money for the UK and for our industrial workshare. Indeed, the PAC subsequently reported:
“We are…concerned to hear that the MoD awarded the contract for this £515 million programme to a large defence prime contractor without a competitive tendering process.”
That is all the more surprising given that in the 1990s, the standard policy of the MOD was to ask for a 100% offset in major off-the-shelf procurements of military equipment from abroad, especially from the US. For instance, in the late 1990s, for the purchase of the C-130J Super Hercules, Lockheed Martin was required to place work to the equivalent of 100% of the multibillion-dollar contract value with UK industry. The work could take one of two forms: direct offset, which is work on the aircraft platform itself, such as propellers or undercarriages or logistics support, or indirect offset,  which is other high-quality work to be placed with the UK defence industry over the life of the programme, but not necessarily directly related to the platform itself.
Under the Blair Government, for whatever reason, the policy was quietly dropped. That has allowed a situation to develop whereby the MOD has bought a number of big-ticket items from the US without receiving any legally binding guarantees of compensating workshare for the UK industry. I therefore suggest to the next Government, of whatever political colour, that if they are reviewing defence, they might want to look at reintroducing the concept of 100% offset for any further major offshore procurements.
In some cases, it is operationally the right thing to buy something off the shelf from the US. I would argue that Wedgetail—at least when it was five aircraft, anyway—was the right decision, but I do not think it acceptable that we hand out such handsome contracts to foreign suppliers without UK industry being given its fair share.
In conclusion, a cynic might say that Boeing is a company increasingly in crisis, which is falling apart even more rapidly than the aircraft it purports to build. That is serious for us in the UK, as like it or not, Boeing is one of our major defence suppliers and is responsible for supporting key equipment in service. We do not want that company to fail. Therefore, we can only hope that the incoming management will take a firm grip of the situation and turn it around—the sooner, the better.
Lastly, it is very good news that we are reversing the downward trend in defence spending and are now investing more, rather than less, in the defence of the realm. That is very much to be welcomed, but it is a question not just of how much we spend, but of how well it is spent. I very much hope that with the new integrated procurement model and perhaps a couple of humble suggestions that I have been able to offer this evening, we can put more of that money to good use to ensure that we, our people and our allies remain safe in an increasingly dangerous world. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. There are 10 Members still seeking to speak. There is considerable expertise in the Chamber tonight—I appreciate that—and I am sure that all Members will want to make a succinct contribution. Frankly, the Chairman of the Defence Committee confined his remarks to 12 minutes, and I hope and expect that other colleagues on both sides of the House will do likewise.

John Spellar: I am mindful of your dictum, Mr Deputy Speaker.
May I start by following up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) about Boeing, because it is about not just getting the contract right in the first place, but enforcing it afterwards? Even when Boeing and other companies have given assurances and agreements, they have not been held to account for them. I fear that the MOD will find a similar problem relating to the hack of the accounts of our personnel, in that the Treasury adamantly, stubbornly refuses to take past performance into account when assessing future contracts. That has to change. For heaven’s sake, I thought that one of the supposed  advantages of Brexit was that we could take back control. By the way, our European competitors have been able to do that within the confines of the EU, but we have an ideological battle within the civil service, and Ministers have to take it on across Departments.
May I also apologise for—as is quite obvious—having a cold? It was acquired in good service, as the results in the west midlands last week showed, which colleagues will have noticed. I was hoping that the Minister for Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) would respond to the debate and that he would at least acknowledge, if not welcome, that the council for the home of the British Army is now run by the Labour party, with its excellent leader, Keith Dibble. There is a lesson in that for us. Keith Dibble has been on the moderate side of the Labour party—pro-defence, pro-good sense—for many years and has built up a Labour group that can actually relate to the good people of Aldershot and Farnborough. That is also true in the wider sense for the Labour party. At certain stages in our history, Labour in opposition has been less sound on defence. That is not just a correlation, but a causal factor. Indeed, when Labour is sound on defence, as we always have been in government, the British people have confidence.
This year, we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of NATO—an organisation set up by the Attlee-Bevin Government, who also developed Britain’s nuclear capability. Throughout the changes of Government over that period, we have had a continuous at-sea deterrent. I have to say that Conservative performance has quite often not matched up to their rhetoric—we heard quite a lot of rhetoric from the Front Bench today.
At the end of the cold war, we had “Options for Change”: taking the peace dividend, cutting recruitment, running down equipment, and withdrawing our forces and armour from Germany. It looks as though we are going to have to remedy that at great cost.
We spoke earlier about the nuclear submarine renewal. In March 2007, under the Labour Government, this Parliament agreed to a motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Dame Margaret Beckett) on the principle of the renewal of the nuclear deterrent submarine programme, with the gateway stage to be further decided between 2012 to 2014. At that stage, David Cameron declined to do that, having allowed himself to be blackmailed—I say he allowed himself, because I do not think the Conservatives would have broken up the Government and given up their jobs, as California was not beckoning at that stage. We have therefore suffered considerable extra cost. Workforce teams have been broken up, the rhythm of submarine manufacture up in Barrow has been lost, and there has been an effect on the crews and our equipment. That is a real worry.
I also have a worry about our current submarine programme. I absolutely agree with the principle of the nuclear national endeavour, but I am very concerned about some of the detail. On the nuclear skills taskforce, the Government say:
“we are investing to increase our intake of nuclear sector graduates to around 2,000 in the next four years”.
When I posed a question to the Department for Education, I was told that there are 65 undergraduate enrolments in nuclear and particle physics courses and 190 postgraduate  enrolments—a total of 255. I do not think they will all go into the defence industry, and I have found it hard to get data about how many of them are actually British citizens. Given the security requirements—if those who issue security clearance can get their act together—the Government are seriously underestimating the need to expand those courses and prioritise British students in our nuclear national endeavour programme.
On expenditure, I know from previous debates and from the Defence Committee that many Government Back Benchers agree with the critique and recognise that the dead hand of the deadbeat Treasury—not just recently but over the past 100 years or so—has seriously undermined Britain’s defence capability time and again. In the inter-war period, there was the infamous 10-year rule—defence expenditure was based on the assumption that there would not be a war for 10 years—and in 1915 there was the shell crisis.
It concerns me that, while history may not repeat itself, it certainly rhymes. Back in July 2021, the Defence Committee had General Hodges, the head of the United States Army Europe, giving evidence. He reported on the 3rd Division participating in an American warfighting exercise in Texas. The British Army ran out of every bit of important ammunition in about eight days of exercises. Nothing was done about it.
That was known, yet, when the Ukraine war started in 2022 and it became clear very early on that it was going to be very much an artillery war—there are newer drones and missiles and so on, but artillery plays a crucial role—it took from early 2022 through to July 2033 for the MOD to sign an agreement with BAE to produce the extra shells. There is not that sense of drive and urgency, especially when we are dealing with a country such as Russia that has put its whole economy on a war footing. Even now, we have only two artillery shell plants: Durham and Glascoed. Glascoed recently had demonstrations outside it by people trying to close it; why they are trying to stop them producing shells for Ukraine is another matter, and I certainly hope the union representing those workers will be taking up the case.
The United States has recognised that it cannot have single points of failure. In Glascoed there was recently an explosion; if it had been more serious, what would that have done to our capacity? The United States is building new, Government-owned, company-operated sites. It is not worried by the complaints about nationalisation; indeed, the powers given to the president to command industry are considerable. Yet we are still going through the same old, same old, relying on the companies putting in their cases. We do not have the luxury of that time.
I have been critical of Ministers and senior civil servants, but the senior military must bear responsibility for the situation as well. Year on year, they have focused on platforms rather than munitions or accommodation, and the costs of that are being seen in report after report from our Committee and indeed in the media. We must recognise that we now have a shortage not just of matériel, but of industrial capacity, plant, supply chain, skilled and production personnel, and any capacity to surge. We also have numerous single points of  failure. I have mentioned the United States. France is  commissioning a new explosive plant costing half a billion pounds, again recognising the shortfalls and the critical weaknesses in the system.
I am very pleased that although there has been a lot of focus on the nuclear pillar 1 in the discussions about AUKUS, in pillar 2 there is a lot of work on creating industrial capacity. I credit the Government with the work they are doing there on creating industrial capacity, but I stress that that cannot just be focused on the high-tech end. In many cases, our munitions and platforms depend on industrial skills and basic engineering, which are crucial to ensuring that they are maintained and that they work. We must recognise that we need that industrial base.
As the allies showed in world war two, we can shift domestic industry, plant and personnel to war production; Russia is demonstrating that today. Short-term cost-cutting, identified by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, will not do. Companies need workflows to create the workforce and the cash flow and to provide training opportunities for the workforce of the future. The Barrow submarine yard demonstrates the perils of running down the workforce. However, this is also about a pool of labour. For example, in the context of submarines there has been a great deal of talk about ensuring that people are trained in welding, but if other industries in other sectors are not also training welders, then—particularly if there is any drop in the workforce—they will go off and work in the oil and gas industry. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened, and incidentally it has also happened to parts of the United States shipbuilding industry.
We need a much more holistic approach across Government, because if people are being trained in one industry, it is impossible to control the flow out if there are opportunities elsewhere: there must be pressure on other companies to train as well. I have to say to the Minister that that is why the decision to offshore the commissioning of the fleet solid support ships is so incomprehensible. Given the need to maintain a workforce in certain yards and hence to maintain the skill base, shipping that out to Spain is scandalous. Furthermore, no other country, inside or outside the European Union, behaves in this way. The dead hand of the Treasury is dictating a policy that runs down our industry and ends up being much more costly in the long term.
The Ukrainian crisis has also revealed the need for effective collaboration. As the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford pointed out, we used to negotiate proper contracts of shared benefit, but going for “cheapest is best”—allegedly—has driven that into the ground. We need to work with other countries, which will include, as we have seen in the provision of munitions for Ukraine, working with European companies and European Parliaments. There will be no necessity to create new structures, but work will need to be done, and I suspect that there will be some willing partners in a number of the major European industrial countries, and that will mean a need for more real rather than financial engineers.
Finally—for I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker —I want to touch briefly on the subject of hybrid warfare and the so-called grey zone, on which our Defence Committee is conducting an inquiry. I do not want to pre-empt its findings, but I do want to urge the Ministry of Defence and the wider Government to take a broader, societal approach. The opponents we are  facing, in Russia, China and North Korea, have the Soviet, Leninist methodology and ideology, across government and society. We have shown our ability to counteract that in previous conflicts, both hot and cold, but I think particularly of the Political Warfare Executive and the actions of the United Kingdom and the United States during the cold war. Sometimes the debate becomes a bit too focused on technology and techniques without an understanding of the political and ideological underpinning of conflict.

Martin Docherty: One of the points that we have made previously in the Defence Committee concerns support for the Russian military archive, which was eventually moved to Shrivenham. Is it not about time the MOD took that archive far more seriously, given that it provides all the benefit of what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about?

John Spellar: What the hon. Gentleman refers to was just a manifestation of the running down of our Russia-watching capacity, in that context but also much more broadly within the system. I think there has been an attempt to repair it, but this should be a salutary lesson.
The present transformed security landscape requires money, manpower, mindset and matériel. We have to move further, and we have to move faster.

Bernard Jenkin: I very much welcome this defence debate in Government time but, as we run out of time, I am reminded that we used to have five debates every year on different defence topics. Trying to cover the whole waterfront of defence in one debate is proving very taxing.
I will concentrate today on defence policy, which determines how we spend defence money, and indeed how much we decide to spend on defence, so that we are best prepared for whatever may occur—both the threats we can foresee and the events we cannot anticipate—including deterring and containing our adversaries, preferably without conflict. Incidentally, it is far cheaper to use defence money to prevent wars than to save money that then has to be spent on fighting a war.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP, which clearly sets defence as a higher priority. I fail to understand how this can be tempered by “as resources allow” or “as conditions allow.” The cyber-attack we discussed earlier underlines that we are already at war, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to put us more on a war footing, which means being able to rebuild munition stocks and create resilient supply chains, but it also means increasing our pace and creating a sense of urgency across Government.
We can no longer look forward to an era of global peace. We must jettison what might be termed the peacetime mentality that led my colleagues in Government to accept the restraint of the Liberal Democrats on renewing our strategic deterrent. I was shadow Defence Secretary opposite Geoff Hoon, and I remember that the sound defence review under George Robertson was never fully funded. The proportion of GDP spent by Government on defence fell and fell, and so did the size of the armed forces, the number of ships, the numbers in the Army and the number of aircraft. There are lots of pots and kettles in this Chamber.
I welcome the new consensus—although the Opposition have not quite put flesh on its bones—that we are going to increase money for defence. I respect the aspirations of the shadow Secretary of State, but I fear he may be restrained by the same kind of Treasury mentality that he says afflicts this Government.
This shift to a wartime mentality demands a shift in culture, not just in the MOD but across Government, led from the centre by No. 10, the Cabinet Office and the National Security Council, to create a national defence plan that must cover, as has been noted by other participants in this debate, a far wider spectrum of policy—not just cyber-security but energy security, food security, border security, technological security, economic security and even climate security.
The Liaison Committee, which I chair, is shortly to report on how Select Committees can better scrutinise and promote national strategic thinking and national strategy across all areas of Government policy. I hope the House will be interested in that report.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has proved beyond doubt that we live in a world of hyper-competition between the democratic world and the autocracies that show no sign of self-restraint. There are no boundaries, which we expect of civilised countries, that they will not cross. The democratic world is only just waking up to the threat that presents.
I will make three further points that are relevant to this debate. First, there are lessons to be learned from delaying the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. Defence is not something that can be switched on and off, depending on how we feel about what is going to happen next year. The defence capability of our Trident submarines, which are a very expensive, long-term platform, reflects a failure of judgment by the coalition Government in not making that maingate decision much earlier, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) said. This presents a threat to our capability, as we run the life of the submarines longer and longer, and has escalated the cost.
Secondly, I want to underline the importance of UK leadership in NATO and in the support of Ukraine. We really have led from the front on Ukraine. We have had a delicate relationship with the United States, to encourage them along, but in terms of European NATO we are certainly in the lead. That underlines the importance of the role the United Kingdom plays in the world. We are not just a small country—a little north-Atlantic power—but an opinion-forming country of great influence, which is why we must step up to our responsibilities in defence.
The third point I wish to make is about not so much defence policies but the integrated procurement model, which I very much welcome. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, that is putting us on to a war footing in terms of procurement. It mimics what we have learned from the successful urgent operational requirements programme and will, I hope, lead to a cultural shift to which my right hon. Friend also addressed himself—a shift in attitude and behaviour, which is what we mean by a change of culture.
To achieve that shift in attitude, and to get a sense of urgency, we need to identify the attitudes and behaviours in the Ministry of Defence and in the procurement world that militate against the integrated procurement model, we have to root them out, and we have to identify the right attitudes and the right behaviours,  which means changing hearts and minds in the MOD. How do we do that? Cultural change is very difficult in a large organisation, and previous defence reforms have disappeared into the sand like water in a desert, because there has not been a sufficient emphasis on a cultural shift.
Now, there are three kinds of people in any organisation such as the Ministry of Defence. When confronted with a demand for cultural change, there are the few enthusiasts who say, “At last! The leadership get it and are going to do something and change things”; most will have seen change programmes come and go and will want to comply, but may be rather cynical about it; and there will be a few resistors, who feel that it is an attack on their integrity, their way of doing things or their own personality. I am afraid the resistors have to be rooted out. They have to be taken out of the equation.
It has to be shown that people who resist cultural change will not prosper. That means that everyone at all levels must be taught and trained in the new procurement system, so that there is no misunderstanding about what it means. Previously I have recommended privately to the Secretary of State, and to the Minister for Defence Procurement, that there should be a defence course at Shrivenham called the integrated procurement model course. It should be like the higher command and staff course. Everybody should go on it and anybody involved in defence procurement should sign up to the new philosophy.
Finally, such a change programme requires leadership. It requires the leadership in the Ministry of Defence—the Ministers, the officials and the armed forces leadership—all to be absolutely united behind pursuing the change in attitude and behaviour across the whole MOD, and they must lead by example. The way they prove that is by making sure that nobody gets rewarded or promoted who does not demonstrate that they have adopted the new attitudes and behaviours. Otherwise, the minute the wrong person with the wrong attitudes and the wrong behaviours is promoted, everybody will say, “There you are: it does not matter. You get promoted anyway.” This is a very urgent part of the transformation of defence in this troubling period, and I hope very much that the Government will take up my suggestions.

Derek Twigg: We are obviously living in a much more dangerous world and preparing for a potential war in Europe, which might involve our personnel at some point, not least, of course, in the support of Ukraine in her continual fight against Russia and Putin. All this adds up to a very serious situation.
I want to spend a couple of minutes on the point that we need to argue more forcefully for why the defence of our democratic, liberal way of life is so important, whatever shortcomings there might be in democracies. We need to reinforce the central tenets of free speech, liberty and the rule of law, as opposed to the alternative of dictatorship, gangsterism, brutal violence and the suppression of opposition that we have seen in other parts of the world. That is what we have to defend and fight for. We need to get our whole population prepared to play a part in ensuring our security and defending democracy and the basic principles that our great country stands for. There needs to be a change in mindset.
I think the Government and Parliament need to do a lot more to say why we need to spend more on defence and why we need to be prepared to deal with some very challenging situations, and possibly war. That is where we have failed to some extent, so we need to be much more up front with the British people. We know the threats and potential threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, and the destabilising activities going on in the middle east and parts of Africa at the moment by some of those countries, and they are causing serious concerns. This is why we need to set out to the British public why defence needs to be properly funded and our armed forces supported in a much more systematic way. We did know Russia’s intentions, and its intentions in invading Crimea in 2014 clearly told us that times had changed. We thought that had all disappeared with the cold war, but it had not. However, we did not prepare for this, having cut spending, and we must be prepared to provide the resources needed for our armed forces, because if we want to maintain peace, we have to do so from a position of strength.
The first duty of Government is to defend the security of our country, and I want to look at this Government’s record. The path pursued over the past 14 years has led to a weakening of the capability of our armed forces to warfight over a sustained period, and of course of their resilience. We have heard from the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), about the “hollowing out” of our armed forces, and we could not even put a warfighting division in the field at present. The Government’s failure to properly fund and the decision to cut the size of our armed forces, as well as the failure to stem the outflow from the armed forces and a defence procurement system that is broken, are putting the security of this country at risk and not preparing us for the threats, some of which I have outlined. If peace remains our goal, and it must be, we must be prepared to buy those resources.
Figures have been provided to me by the House of Commons Library. We have heard about cuts in defence expenditure during the coalition Government, but if we look at the whole period from 2010-11 to 2023-24, in both cash and real terms, the House of Commons Library figures show that spending has fallen by 1.2% at 2023-24 prices. So over the period of this Government, the record is that defence funding has actually fallen, no matter what they are doing now. It is just by coincidence that there is a general election coming up, and they have suddenly committed to a 2.5% increase.
Aside from the £3 billion that the Government have committed to military support for Ukraine, it is not clear exactly what the additional £5.4 billion of funding represents, because it has not yet been approved by Parliament or listed in any detail. On defence equipment, the increase in planned spending has been outstripped by a £65.7 billion—27%—rise in forecasted costs, which totalled £305.5 billion as of March 2023. This equates to a £19.6 billion funding shortfall based on central estimates, although the MOD estimates that the true shortfall could range from £7.6 billion to £29.8 billion if all the risks materialise. The National Audit Office scrutinises the equipment plan and publishes its own report alongside the MOD’s, and in recent years the NAO has assessed successive plans—I stress, successive plans—to be unaffordable.
I want to go into the size of the armed forces and the cuts that are taking place. Between January 2010 and January 2024, the size of the full-time UK armed forces decreased by around 50,000 personnel. The Army is now at its smallest, as some have said, since the Napoleonic wars. Both the RAF and the Royal Navy/Royal Marines are below target, by around 3,000 personnel and 1,500 personnel respectively.
The House of Commons Library has sent me a note on UK defence personnel, and it sets out that, in 2023, there was a 1% reduction in the number of personnel leaving the UK regular forces compared with the previous year, but there was also an 8% reduction in the number of people joining the armed forces. Overall, there was a negative flow of personnel, with 5,460 more personnel leaving the forces than joining. This compares with a net increase of 4,660 personnel in 2022. Voluntary outflow accounted for 60% of trained outflow from UK regular forces in 2023. The voluntary outflow rate is the number of trained personnel voluntarily leaving as a proportion of the average trained strength in the period. In 2023, the voluntary outflow rate was 6.4%, up from 6% in 2022. In its commentary published alongside the personnel statistics, the MOD says:
“There is no single reason why personnel leave on Voluntary Outflow, but the personnel who completed the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey indicated reasons for leaving the Armed Forces included the impact of Service life on family and personal life and opportunities outside the Armed Forces.”
Again, the Government have no real plan to address this really challenging problem.
I want to refer briefly to the state of the reserve forces, which is a really serious concern at the moment, particularly where we get specialist grades coming into the reserve forces from civilian life. We have a real problem with recruiting and retaining those reserve forces. In January 2024 the total trained and untrained strength of UK reserve forces was 32,650—a decrease of 665 personnel, or minus 4.9%, compared with the year before. Outflow was higher than inflow for Army, maritime and RAF reserve forces in 2023. The number of reserve personnel continued to decline from a peak of around 37,400 in April 2021.
I know that the Minister has previously been questioned about this issue by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but we cannot get the information about pinch point grades that used to be available. Those are the specialist grades that are so important to maintaining the sustainability, competency and fighting power of the armed forces, and we are still trying to get more information about them. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body said in a 2023 report that
“there could be insufficient personnel with the right skills to deliver the outputs envisaged by the Integrated Review. We would welcome more data from MOD relating to these pinch point areas and what interventions MOD is planning to employ to address the issues.”
We in this House would welcome that data as well.
Our armed forces are running hot and being asked to do ever more without the resources they need. Resilience is a growing concern, not just for personnel, but for the ability to maintain and replenish losses in a Navy and Air Force that are much smaller in terms of ships and aircraft. The Defence Committee’s “Ready for War?” report said:
“It is a matter of national pride that whenever the Armed Forces are asked to carry out a task, they will find a way. It is to the credit of the Armed Forces that they have sustained this effort  for so long. But overtasking has both a personal cost for service personnel and an opportunity cost for the UK. The increase in global instability has coincided with a period of decreasing recruitment and reduced industrial capacity, which requires sustained, long-term investment. The Government risks being unable to build true warfighting and strategic readiness because of the sheer pace of operations, which could threaten the security of the UK.”
We cannot continue like this. As I have said, we live in a dangerous and increasingly unstable world, and we need to move quickly to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence. The Government have still not set out how they intend to get there: they have not given the details, and the figures they have quoted so far have been rubbished by independent analysis, as we have already seen. The fact remains that over the past 15 years this Government have put our security at risk through their underfunding of the armed forces and their cutting of personnel. That is another reason why the current Prime Minister and this Government need to go.

Julian Lewis: Earlier this afternoon I counted over 50 right hon. and hon. Members of the Labour party alone packing the Opposition Benches for the urgent question on the middle east. Sadly, though predictably, by the time we got to this important debate we were down to the usual suspects—the usual stalwarts, about half a dozen to a dozen Members on each side of the House. That difference in the numbers is relevant: the reason for it is that an actual war is going on in the middle east, so people are very focused on it, now that it is too late to prevent it. Our purpose in holding debates such as this one should be not to get to that situation.
I have some reservations about the constant references to us being in a pre-war world. I know what the Secretary of State and others mean when they refer to that, but it can be taken as meaning that we are in a situation where war is inevitable, and it is not. We have to behave as if we were going to have to defend ourselves in a real war, because if we make those preparations adequately, we will, through a policy of deterrence, prevent the war from happening in the first place.
This close to a general election, it is perhaps inevitable that we will hear people on both sides of the House, but on the Front Benches in particular, quibbling over percentage points of GDP being allocated to defence expenditure. But I have to say that 2.5%, 3% or even 4% would not be anything like adequate if a war actually broke out—44% is probably more like what we would have to spend. This is not just about a loss of treasure; even worse, it is about the human suffering and loss of life that would happen if we fail to invest adequately in peacetime to prevent that from ever coming to pass.
The economist Roger Bootle recently explained:
“During the Second World War, we spent roughly 50% of GDP on the military and slightly more than this in 1916 and 1917, during the First World War.”
So for goodness sake, let us be serious about this. No Government can be exonerated for the Kool-Aid that they drank after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
During the 2015-17 Parliament, the Defence Committee spent a bit of time trying to establish what had happened to defence expenditure in the post-war era. What we found was this: in 1963 we spent similar sums—about 6% of GDP—on both welfare and defence; and by 2017, after the study was carried out, we were spending six times  as much on welfare as we were spending on defence. Similarly, it was found that in the mid-1980s we had been spending similar sums—about 5% of GDP then—on education, health and defence. By 2017 we were spending 2.5 times as much on education and nearly four times as much on health as we were spending on defence.
At the height of the cold war confrontation, and every year from 1981 to 1987, we spent between 4.3% and 5.1% of GDP on defence. From 1988—when the cold war began to evaporate—until 2014, defence spending almost halved as a proportion of GDP. Of course, there was a reason for that: it appeared that the threat from Russia had gone away. Well, now it is back. The question is this: are we prepared to revert to the sort of investment in defence in “peacetime” that we made so successfully during the 50 years of the cold war, which prevented an outbreak—a terrible further global conflict—between the then superpowers, both of which were armed with nuclear weapons?
I revert to what I said in an intervention on the Secretary of State when he was opening the debate: everything depends on what happens in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Let us be honest that when the threat of a Russian invasion of Ukraine arose in early 2022, not many people—hardly any in this Chamber, I suspect, myself included—predicted that Ukraine would be as successful as it has proved to be in resisting the might of the Russian invasion. I suspect that what had made that possible was that the shock that they had experienced in previous years over the loss of Crimea, which, if I remember correctly, was taken over by the Russians quite easily, focused their minds, their efforts and their investment upon the dire possibility that Russia might come back for more. That is why Ukraine was so much better prepared, with the covert assistance of other countries, not least this one, to resist the second Russian invasion when it happened.
I cannot stress too strongly that Ukraine’s battle is our battle. If Putin is seen to be unsuccessful in Ukraine, then the threat to us and to the rest of NATO will recede for a generation. However, if he is able to claim some sort of success, by ending up with significantly more territory at the end of the process than he had under his control in February 2022, then it will only be a matter of time before he comes back for more.
I want to say a few words about the middle east, but they are not actually my words; they are words from a remarkably perceptive article written by a Member of the upper House, the noble Lord Hague—William Hague, to us. He outlined his reaction to the atrocities of 7 October in an astonishingly perceptive way in The Times within 48 hours of that attack. I want to set some of what he said on the record, because he raised the question of why on earth Hamas should have undertaken such an action when they must have known it would provoke a horrifying response. He asked the question:
“Why, as well as murdering hundreds of defenceless young people at a rave, parade dead bodies as evidence of the atrocities? The answer is that their objective is uncontrolled rage. It is to make Israel lash out in a way that starts a conflagration. To start a war so intense that it spreads, igniting an explosion of violence in the West Bank and bringing in Hezbollah from Lebanon in the north, with Israel fighting on multiple fronts. To see so many   Palestinians killed that the Israelis lose the moral high ground of defending themselves against mass murder. To use the fate of hostages, with maximum cruelty, to intensify a frenzy of hatred whenever that seems to be abating.”
That is still going on now. We heard reference to the Israeli soldiers recently killed in a Hamas artillery strike close to the one entrance where aid was coming into Palestine. Guess what happened? The Israelis immediately closed that entrance, thus intensifying the crisis. The Hamas strategists clearly know what they are doing. It is horrible—devilish— but there is a cruel logic to it.
The heading that Lord Hague—or his sub-editor at The Times—used for that article was:
“Hamas has set a trap that Israel must avoid: Iranian-backed attacks are desperate attempts to halt growing collaboration with Saudi Arabia and the UAE”.
The only element that was missing in the article was that that strategy, promoted by Iran, was also extremely beneficial to Russia, because now we spend rather more time considering what is happening in Israel and Gaza than we spend considering what is happening between Russia and Ukraine, despite the fact that what is happening between Russia and Ukraine cannot be emphasised too often because it is of crucial significance to the future peace, or lack of peace, of NATO countries vis-à-vis the Russian threat.
I will close with some remarks about the nuclear deterrent, which has been touched on a few times. One of the votes took place under Labour, as we have heard, on 14 March 2007, when there was a substantial majority for the deterrent. Parliament voted by 409 votes to 161 in favour of proceeding with the initial gate for the renewal of the Trident submarine fleet; but even that huge majority of 248 was eclipsed on 18 July 2016, when under the Conservative Government—free from the coalition—the majority rose to 355 when MPs voted for the decisive main gate stage to proceed. That vote was won by 472 votes to 117.
That shows near unanimity in the House for the maintenance of our strategic nuclear deterrent—and all that happened before the various crises that we have been concentrating on today. Let us hope that unity prevails. I, for one, welcome the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who said that his party is now committed to four submarines and to the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent, which presumably means with the use of Trident missiles. I say “use” because they are used every day of the week. Their use is as a deterrent. If ever—heaven forbid—they had to be fired, they would fail in their purpose.
We have come a long way and we have made a lot of progress. It is just as well that we are united, given the way in which the international scene has darkened, but both Front Benches have a long way to go if they are to reach a stage where we are making the sort of investment, the sort of insurance and the sort of effort that has to be made to deter an aggressive Russia and to ensure that Ukraine prevails.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I will have to put a 10-minute time limit on speeches after the next speaker to get everybody in. That is not an invitation, Mr Jones, to speak for more than 12 minutes.

Kevan Jones: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I begin by putting on the record the whole House’s thanks to the members of our armed forces for the service they give selflessly to protect us all? It is often said that the first responsibility of a Government is to protect the nation, keep it safe and protect its citizens. I think we need to look at what has happened over the past 14 years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said in his contribution that the armed forces are being “hollowed out”—not his words or mine, but those of the former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). Have we got to that situation by accident? No, we have not. That has been a deliberate policy over the last 14 years, including the 18% cut in the defence budget up to 2015-16. Today, the defence budget is 7% lower in real terms than it was in 2010. As my hon. Friend said, we saw our armed forces personnel cut by nearly 50,000—they were not only cut; there were compulsory redundancies. If a Labour Government had done that, every national newspaper would have had a lot to say about it. One in five ships in the Royal Navy has been taken out of service. We have 200 fewer aircraft in the RAF now, and satisfaction ratings for service life are at an all-time low of 50%.
Is it a time for serious policy and serious money on defence? Yes, it is, but we have not got that from the Government or from the Prime Minister’s announcement, which is the usual smoke and mirrors. It is about soundbites that can be sold at the next general election. The Defence Secretary could sell snow to the Eskimos in his confident sort of way. I am not sure they would come back and buy more snow from him once they discovered what they had actually been sold.
If we look at what has been announced, an extra £75 billion is the headline. That will be repeated by every Conservative candidate in the general election, but we know they only get that figure if the defence budget would have been frozen for the next six years—something the Defence Secretary fails to admit. Also, where is the money? If my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench had announced this, straightaway people would be saying, “Where’s the money coming from? Where’s the detail?” There is no detail; it is just an aspiration—that is all it is. There is no separation between how much will be spent on resource and capital departmental expenditure limits. What we have from the salesman that is the Secretary of State is a whole shopping list of everything that will be put right by the supposed huge expenditure he has announced. It is pretty hollow.
Let us deal with facts. The Secretary of State does not like dealing with facts. It is like when he came before the Defence Committee. If we take the money to Ukraine out of the budget, the defence budget for next year—this was confirmed by the strategic finance director of the MOD—falls. The question that people need to ask at the next general election is: where is the money coming from? Why are our armed forces in such a dire state? We know the answer to that. It is because of the past 14 years.
We need to concentrate on three things: the defence of our homeland and the contribution to NATO, which has been mentioned; the capability of our equipment  and how it can be delivered; and putting weight behind British industry and skills. The Secretary of State said earlier that the announcement meant a huge boost to UK defence expenditure, but the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) demonstrated what we have seen over the last 14 years: contract after contract given to the United States, without any commitment to UK skills. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) mentioned the case of the fleet solid support ship given to a Spanish shipyard. That would never happen in any other European nation. We must ensure not just that we have the right equipment and procurement procedures, but that decisions are taken to boost our armed forces and to help UK plc.

Bob Seely: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a balance? Clearly, one would like everything for the military to be produced in this country to support our industrial base, but at the same time we complain about procurement scandals when the kit turns out to be so much more expensive than elsewhere. We need a balance. When we can realistically produce stuff in this country, we should be doing so—obviously, I will make the case for radar on the Isle of Wight—but if we try to do everything in this country, we will need to increase the defence budget just to pay for poorer quality procurement. He does not seem to be addressing that point.

Kevan Jones: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be talking down the UK defence industry. He talks about radars in the Isle of Wight, which are some of the best radars in the world, but what are we doing? We are not giving long-term commitments to those capabilities. We are buying off the shelf from the United States and other nations. We are not just talking about buying British; it is about co-operation with our allies as well. The problem is that if we take a short-termist view, which is what has happened over the past 14 years, we do not get the commitments and the flow through of orders, nor the R&D, investment and certainty, that people on the Isle of Wight need.
The Secretary of State said that the UK is now on a war footing following this announcement. Why, then, did it take the Government nearly two years to procure the order for 155 mm munitions? That is not a war footing; that is a slow snail’s pace of procurement. We need to ensure that we get not only the finance and the increase in the defence budget, but that rapid throughput of work. That cannot be done just by placing one order this week and then leaving it for several years, thinking that somehow the defence contractors will still be there with their skills.
We need a thorough defence policy. One thing that has been missing in the last 14 years is a coherent defence industrial strategy. Even when the Government do come up with a strategy, such as the shipbuilding strategy, what do they do? The main argument for that strategy was that we needed to have a throughput of work at UK yards, so what did the Government do? They made an order where most of the work will be done in Spain. No other European nation would do that.
As has been said, this is a very worrying time, and I agree totally with my hon. Friend the Member for Halton that we need to make the case for defence. I have been doing that for 23 years in this House, as have  others across the House. We need to make that case to show that the democracy that we take for granted is delicate and needs to be protected. We can protect it only if we invest in the capability to do so, because there are those, even beyond the immediate threat we see from Russia, who would happily see the precious democracy that we cherish snubbed out, not through argument and debate, but through violence and war.

James Gray: When you took the Chair some time ago, Mr Deputy Speaker, you observed that the House was stuffed full of defence expertise, and that has been demonstrated amply in the debate that has followed your taking the Chair. Once or twice, I felt that I had inadvertently stumbled into a private meeting of the Defence Committee, since most Members who have spoken so far—though not all—are either present or previous members of that Committee. I pay tribute to their huge expertise, particularly on defence procurement. They know what they are talking about in immense detail and I fear that I simply do not, so I will not try to compete with them on that.
However, it has been a very important debate for this reason: this is the first occasion, I think, on which the Government have given us a debate in Government time on the subject of defence. I have banged on for many years, trying to persuade the Government to do that, but this is the first such debate, and I hope it is the first of many. We used to have five every year, so I hope very much that we will have a significant number of debates over the years to come.
The important point about these debates is that, as a number of people have commented, we live in exceptionally dangerous times, in an exceptionally dangerous world, and we simply do not know what is going to happen next. There could be all kinds of warfare and trouble to come. It is therefore very important that the House as a whole—not just the Defence Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, but the House as a whole—should have a serious understanding of defence and foreign affairs. It is terribly important that debates such as this are used towards the better education of all our colleagues across the House.
In that context, I am particularly proud of the work I have done for quite a long time to seek to educate better Members of Parliament across the House. I have used two mechanisms. Many Members here will be familiar with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which this year has seconded 64 MPs and peers in uniform to the three armed services. As of this year, thanks to an initiative by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) , we have introduced a fourth course, namely the strategic command course, which has been widely enjoyed. There are 64 people altogether, four of whom go to the Royal College of Defence Studies—the ultimate in thinking in the armed services.
That seems to me an extremely important contribution that we have made over the last few years. I am glad to say that this is the 10th anniversary of the revived version of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which  I have chaired, and I pay tribute to the people who run it for me. Lieutenant Colonel Johnny Longbottom, in particular, has done great work over those years. The scheme has made a huge contribution to the better understanding of defence by people in this place.
Alongside that, I also chair the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, which holds two or three events a month, very often downstairs. Again, that is widely enjoyed by a large spectrum of people from across the Chamber. It enables the Ministry of Defence to get its messages over to ordinary Members of Parliament in a way it would not otherwise be able to do. We have laid on various welcome home events when people come back from overseas deployments and laid on individual meet-and-greets in Speaker’s House and the occasional breakfast.
I remember in particular the Fighting With Pride breakfast, which moved us all a great deal through the things it brought to light. I did not know before that about the appalling things we had done to LGBT soldiers, sailors and airmen until 2001. Certainly for me and a number of other Members, that breakfast gave us a determination to do something about it. I am glad to say that at the end of a year’s campaigning, we did achieve something of that kind. The APPG does an extraordinarily useful job, and I am proud that I chair it. I pay tribute to Amy Swash and Sophie Lane in my office who run it for me. It is a great organisation.
The reason I am proud of all that is that sometimes when people talk about defence in this Chamber they talk about the role that Parliament might have in the event of our going to war. They come to an entirely false conclusion that we should therefore have a debate and a vote in this House on the deployment of troops overseas. This important matter has been troubling me for many years now. Of all the 175 wars we have fought since 1700, only two have had a substantive vote in this House before deployment. The first was in 2003, when Tony Blair sought top cover by insisting on votes on the invasion of Iraq. The second was in 2013 when David Cameron again sought top cover in seeking to retaliate against Syria for using chemical weapons. On the first occasion, we voted in favour of it—what a mistake that was, and I am glad to say that I abstained—and on the second occasion we voted against it, and we did not go to war with Syria. Most people would now say that much of what has happened in the middle east since then would have been different had we done so.
On both occasions where the House of Commons has voted on a matter of deployment, we have got it wrong and done the wrong thing. On all the other occasions where we have gone to war, it has been done by the Prime Minister and the Executive under the royal prerogative and we have tended to get it right. Our role then becomes scrutiny of what it is that the Prime Minister and Executive have done. We can stand here, ask questions, call debates and do all sorts of things to scrutinise how the Prime Minister has done what he has done. That is an important role for Parliament to play. If we are being asked to vote for something, as Labour Members were forced to vote on a three-line Whip in 2003 in favour of the Iraq war, we cannot then turn around and criticise it. Our job here in Parliament is to scrutinise and criticise what the Government have done, not to give them top cover for it.
It is therefore important that, whatever may be about to befall us in this world—who knows what that might be—we do not once again fall into the easy truism that on such vital matters we in the House of Commons must be given a vote. No, we must not. That is to emasculate us as Members of Parliament and to prevent us from holding the Government to account. It presumes that we have the secret intelligence, legal advice and all the other things one needs to take that kind of decision. We must not do that. We are ordinary Members of Parliament; we should be better informed about defence, which is why I welcome debates such as this, and we should know what we are talking about, as well as we can in this place, but the notion that that should lead us to conclude that somehow or other we have Executive power over what the armed services do is, I fear, entirely fallacious.
I very much hope that we will use these debates, the armed forces parliamentary scheme—or the new scheme that will be launched shortly—and the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces for the better education not of the specialists who we see around us in this debate this evening to whose great expertise I pay tribute, but of the generality of Members of Parliament and the generality of people who look into these things, feel concerned, but may not have the detailed expertise that we have seen demonstrated in the Chamber this evening. I want to see Parliament a better informed place about defence and foreign affairs, and I hope that those two organisations will play some part in doing that.

Richard Foord: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), and I pay tribute to him as the chair and lead of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces. He hosts lots of highly experienced, very senior strategic thinkers from the armed forces as part of that APPG.
I welcome this opportunity to debate UK defence policy at greater length. I have been struck that so far many of the speeches have been about defence capability and equipment, but I was particularly impressed by the comments about the strategic environment. The most senior military personnel in our kingdom talk about strategy in terms of ends, ways and means. It would be a mistake to spend all our time talking about means when they expect the Government and Parliament also to think about ways and particularly ends—the end state that the UK is seeking to bring about. I will focus my remarks more on the strategic environment and the wider security context, and towards the end I will talk a bit about cuts to the regular Army. I will also comment on the suggestions that have been knocking around recently about a citizens army.
I was impressed by the remarks of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the strategic environment. I am glad that in the west we seek to take the peace dividend when we think it is available to us. One thing that stands out about democracies is that when the security environment allows, we try to invest in health and education. It is absolutely appropriate to champion that, but we should also be realistic enough to recognise when times do not allow for that.
We have talked today about continuous at-sea deterrents and the role of the coalition Government in having a Trident alternatives review, which is not to be regretted.  In the security context of the time, when Obama was talking about a reset button and we signed a strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia—New START—it was appropriate to be thinking along the same lines as in the 1990s, when the west and the Soviet Union were mutually trying to reduce the threats from our nuclear weapons. As it happens, the events from 2014 onwards plainly proved that we absolutely need to be as strong as possible.
The Prime Minister’s remarks a fortnight ago were interesting. He talked about a new defence partnership between the UK and Germany. I welcomed the fact that he made the announcement in Berlin and the idea that we should have greater interoperability with our allies, but he then fell into this business of talking about putting the defence industry on to a “war footing”. Indeed, that chimed with the Defence Secretary’s statement that we are entering a “pre-war era”. When we throw such remarks around, we need to qualify what we mean, because we know that our adversaries listen carefully to what we say. We do not need belligerent tones and a mismatch between our rhetoric and our capability; instead, we should speak quietly while making ourselves as strong as possible. That is of course what the armed forces are for. “Bello te praepares” was the motto of the Army training regiment when I was there as a platoon commander. We were very much about preparing for war, but we were doing it quietly. It would be sensible for the Defence Secretary to make those preparations as ardently as possible but not in a showy fashion.
If the Defence Secretary’s motivation is genuinely to send a message to Ukraine that we are in this for the long haul and that there is certainty, he will not want to make this a party political issue or suggest that Opposition parties are somehow less supportive of Ukraine. He asked earlier whether we would match the £500 million uplift per year for Ukraine. Yes—we recognise the characterisation of Russia’s westward expansion as a threat to all Europe, so Ukraine can be assured that, regardless of a change of Government later this year, it will continue to receive £3 billion in support from the UK.
The Foreign Secretary said last week, when he was in Ukraine, that Ukraine is free to use long-range Storm Shadow missiles over the border into Russia. I am surprised that that has not come up in our discussion today. That may be because such things should not be done on the Floor of the House, and I very much welcomed the approach of the former Defence Secretary, who would share with Opposition parties, well in advance of the debate, the urgent question or the statement, what he intended to say through his special adviser. That was a way to have such conversations not on the Floor of the House or in such a public fashion. As it is, the strategic communications people in NATO will now have to work all the harder to counter the false narratives and lies that Russia pumps out about Ukraine somehow being a threat to the Russian people, or even Russia being threatened by NATO itself.
From an operational standpoint, that use of missiles makes good sense. Clearly, main supply routes, arms dumps and fuel depots will now be brought within range, but we should remember that the centre of gravity here is the Russian people and their willingness to fight. We know that the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan after 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed. To encourage Russians  not to sign up, we need to persuade them that the state of Russia is not threatened by Ukraine or, indeed, by NATO.
On the cuts to the regular Army, I was interested by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) about recruitment and consent. I would point to the issue of consent when we talk about parliamentary approval of military action. I do not believe that Governments were merely seeking top cover when they had a debate in Parliament on the intervention in Iraq in 2003 or on the intervention in Syria in 2013. Rather, they were genuinely seeking to engage with us as representatives of the people to try to get support.
Finally, I come to a proposal that was leaked to a journalist, David Parsley, at the i a couple of weeks ago about a 20,000-strong volunteer force that could potentially train a 200,000-strong volunteer Army. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that or any other leak, but if that is the response from the Government to the pressure they have been under on cuts to the Army, it would not be a sensible approach. The plan talks about an annual spend of some £500 per recruit in training allowances per year for the initial 20,000 ex-forces personnel during peacetime. That amount would not go very far. Service personnel would suppose that the MOD was once again budgeting to withhold blank rounds in favour of commanders asking trainee soldiers to shout “Bang!” We cannot have an Army on paper that does not exist in reality. We need a regular Army of 82,000. We need to reverse the cuts that we have seen in recent years, and we need to build credible armed forces so that we are strong not only in our rhetoric, but in our capability.

Jack Lopresti: My constituency lies at the heart of one of the largest clusters of defence and aerospace manufacturing in Europe, namely the south-west region. I am also very proud that Abbey Wood, the home of the MOD’s procurement agency, is based in my constituency. Companies such as Rolls-Royce are playing a key role in developing the Tempest fighter jet as part of the global combat air programme, or GCAP, a next-generation programme that will provide the Royal Air Force and our allies with capability fit for the future. Last month, I was delighted to welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to open the FutureWorks at Rolls-Royce in Patchway. The lift fan for the F-35 is built in the same plant. The engines that power the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers have also been built by Rolls-Royce at the same plant in Patchway.
This Friday, I will join Boeing at the opening of their new offices—the third time I have opened an office for Boeing in my constituency.
A few weeks ago I was pleased to join Rheinmetall, who as we all know will be building the new Boxer and the Boxer RCH self-propelled artillery for our military, at the opening of its new offices in my constituency. MBDA in Filton is developing future technologies and expertise, which even today help the Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles that are making such a difference to Ukrainian efforts to defeat the Russians and kick them out of their country.
Airbus builds the wings for the RAF A400M transport aircraft, and the Wing of Tomorrow facility in Filton represents a significant investment in our future aerospace and defence expertise. Just over the road is the new GKN technology centre. I have recently visited Elbit Systems—a company with a growing footprint in my constituency, which demonstrated some of the capability it is developing to help our armed forces. I regularly meet senior members of civilian and military staff at DE&S Abbey Wood, who have been masterminding the UK’s effort and rallying support for our international partners to support Ukraine, as well as running the MOD’s procurement for our armed forces.
The defence and aviation sector in my constituency employs more than 30,000 people, with a significant supply chain across the south-west. Indeed, a significant number of jobs in the south-west are connected to the defence sector—an additional 17,600 according to latest industry data, although I am minded to think it is probably a lot more. Apprenticeships are key to a wider effort to enable us to train the scientists and engineers of the future, to ensure that we continue to enhance our sovereign defence manufacturing capability, as well as being a vehicle to promote social mobility and opportunity. The MOD is committed to invest at least £6.6 billion in its funding for research and development over the next four years, which will help the apprenticeship programmes.
The most recent statistics relating to the defence sector, published just last week by the United Kingdom Defence Solutions Centre, show that over 406,000 full-time jobs are directly supported by that sector. When I was co-chair of the all-party group on apprenticeships, I produced a report, after chairing an inquiry into MOD apprenticeships, which underlined the fact that the MOD is the largest provider of apprenticeships in the country. Apprenticeships provide fantastic opportunities for our young people, and they keep training and increasing the expertise for our industrial base.
The announcement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made last month to raise the level of our defence expenditure to 2.5% of GDP is a welcome demonstration from this Government to underpin our commitment to our NATO allies, and our friends and allies around the world. The message is clear: the United Kingdom is leading the way as the largest defence spender in Europe, in addition to demonstrating that we are a reliable partner and ally.
Moreover, the MOD is transforming itself to be ready for whatever lies ahead. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke about this being a “pre-war era” in his Lancaster House speech earlier this year. I was glad that he was able to see some of the work done at Abbey Wood when he visited just a couple of weeks ago. The announcement that at least 5% of spending will be ringfenced for research and development from 2025-26 onwards, with an increased focus on dual-use technologies, received a positive reception in my constituency. There was also the announcement of the overall defence spending increase of £75 billion over the next six years.
I have visited Ukraine six times in the last 12 months, and will soon be going again to attend the International Defence Industries Forum and the Yalta European Strategy Conferences. Moreover, I have promoted the work of many British defence manufacturers, as well as making the case for them to do more in terms of  operations and manufacturing in Ukraine. I have met senior members of the Ukrainian Government, and been told of their frustration at the delays that seem to be occurring in setting up meaningful collaboration between British and Ukrainian defence manufacturers. That is against a backdrop where Russia has increased its military spending by 68% to 7.5% of its GDP. Putin claimed recently that more than 520,000 new jobs have been created in the Russian arms industry, which now employs an estimated 3.5 million people.
On those visits I have met senior Ministers in Ukraine, such as Oleksandr Kamyshin, the Minister of Strategic Industries, as well as the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council, the Chairman of the National Security, Defence and Intelligence Committee, and many others. I have been to the front lines in Zaporizhzhia to see British-made artillery in action—the AS-90s, most of which seem to have come from one of my son’s Army regiments, 1st Regiment Royal Horse Artillery. Michael is currently deployed in Estonia on exercise, deterring the Russian threat.
In addition, I work constantly to bring together defence manufacturers from across the United Kingdom, and I have arranged meetings with the Minister for Defence Procurement, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). I have had meetings here in London and elsewhere. The benefits of increased trade in all sectors, but especially in defence matériel, are evident and in the national interests of Ukraine and the United Kingdom, as well as some of the surrounding countries, particularly Poland and Romania. For us in the United Kingdom, we defend our own sovereignty and critical national infrastructure. Russia has already proven that it can conduct cyber-warfare against the west effectively, and has been only emboldened in this by its ever closer relationship with China. For Ukraine, it is armed with the best of British kit and equipment. Coupled with Ukraine’s world-leading expertise in drone technology and standards, this could quickly produce high-quality military equipment, for Ukraine has a keen interest in establishing partnerships with defence companies based here in the UK and across Europe, in order to rebuild its own defence industrial base and help to win the war, as well as to invest in deterrence post victory as Ukraine moves towards NATO membership.
Over the course of a recent visit to Ukraine, I produced a report, at the Prime Minister’s request, about the challenges in setting up manufacturing bases in Ukraine and how to unblock the bureaucracy that is proving an impediment to doing so. It is reassuring that the Prime Minister has joined me and others throughout the Chamber in calling for the UK’s defence industry to be put on a war footing. This will enable our defence manufacturers and the wider supply chains to plan with confidence and to invest in the capabilities that we will need to fight the wars of the future and provide an important deterrent to our enemies.
First, though, we have to unblock the bureaucracy and try to make it as easy as possible for companies to collaborate together, particularly those from the United Kingdom and Ukraine, given our special relationship and the support we have given them, over and above most nations. As our Ukrainian friends say, we must build the arsenal of the free world together.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), and others who have spoken exceptionally well.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) has now left the Chamber, but many of us have had the opportunity to be involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which he now chairs. I know the people who previously ran the scheme, which I did for four different terms, and I must say that I learned a lot from it in each and every case.
I put on the record my thanks to all those who serve in the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. In my constituency of Strangford, the tradition of service is one that I am always amazed by—many people have joined up and served, and their families have served, over many a year—so I am really pleased to contribute to the debate.
I want to focus on Northern Ireland in particular, on defence procurement and on how we can do better. In the 2023-24 financial year, the UK spent some £54.2 billion on defence. That is expected to rise to £57.1 billion in 2024-25, which is a 4.5% real terms increase. As a member of NATO, we are committed to meeting our defence expenditure targets, so it is great to discuss the importance of these matters and to underline them.
Our defence industry is so important in the United Kingdom, as has been shown time and again in the assistance offered to support Israel and Ukraine over the past few years. In addition, it is fantastic that Northern Ireland can play its role in the UK’s defence industry. There are so many businesses that go above and beyond to provide support. For example, I know that everyone is well aware of Thales and the NLAW shoulder-launched anti-tank devices that have been used with great success against the Russians in Ukraine. Thales is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who tells me that the largest number of the workforce comes from my Strangford constituency. Whether in respect of service in uniform or service in the defence sector, I am honoured, pleased and privileged to be the MP for Strangford and to know that my constituents can do such a great job.
Strangford has another section of Thales, the missile section, down in Crossgar. It is producing fantastic military products to combat Russian tanks and aeroplanes both in captured parts of Ukraine and across Russia. With a 30-year heritage of world-class engineering in Strangford, Thales employs some 500 people and contributes £77 million to Northern Ireland’s GDP.
There is also an ecosystem of suppliers. Ninety-one per cent of our local procurement in Northern Ireland comes from small and medium-sized enterprises. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is holding an inquiry into procurement in the defence sector, and we hope that Northern Ireland can become a bigger player, but we do not have a regional hub, which should be one of our recommendations. Many companies have come to make representations to the Committee.
The Prime Minister recently announced that defence budgets will increase in 2024-25, and I am incredibly encouraged and pleased that the Secretary of State spoke about ensuring a focus on allocating those funds  towards defence budgets in Northern Ireland. I am sure the Minister for Defence People and Families will repeat that in his summing up, as I know every Minister does, but Northern Ireland does not have the proportion of defence contracts that it should have relative to other parts of the United Kingdom, such as the north-east or south of England.
Companies such as Spirit AeroSystems, Harland & Wolff and Thales need to be offered contracts to help Northern Ireland to contribute towards further supporting the UK. We want to play our part. We have companies with the skilled workforce, the opportunity and the eagerness. Nitronica, an electronic manufacturer in Ballynahinch, is one of the companies that we are very keen to be involved in defence procurement contracts. One way of making that happen would be to have a regional hub, and the quicker we have it, the better.
There is certainly a reason for us to have a conversation about cyber-security and how the defence budget can support online protection. The Secretary of State made a statement earlier on the defence data hack. We have a commitment to cyber-security, and my understanding is that the skills we have in Northern Ireland, whether in Belfast or Londonderry, are equal to those down south or in England.
The defence industry is economically important to many areas of the United Kingdom, and our defence policy must be consistent with an industrial strategy that promotes jobs and skills throughout all the regions and nations of the UK. I am proud to be British, and I am proud to be a member of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we need to see it working physically. In his summing up, will the Minister give us some encouragement by telling us how we can do better? We want to do better, because we believe in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
In ensuring that the data breach is not repeated, and with national security being at the forefront of our priorities, it is clear that more steps need to be taken to preclude any future incident. In the years since the Good Friday agreement was signed, Northern Ireland has become a hotspot for cyber-security innovation. The cities of Belfast and Londonderry are to the fore in exhibiting high technology specialists and consistently attracting domestic and overseas investment. We are proud of that hub, and we feel that it should be leading the way. Although it is important that our aerospace, communications and arms sectors are offered further defence contracts, our cyber-security sector is just as important and must also be given recognition.
It is always encouraging to hear about the Secretary of State’s intention to boost defence spending. Whenever I ask him questions in the Chamber, he always replies by mentioning Thales, Spirit AeroSystems and Harland & Wolff as examples of where we are doing better, but we need a regional hub—that is my request in this debate —to ensure that we have the means to help ourselves.
We in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a fabulous defence industry, an incredibly skilled workforce, and opportunities to grow and maintain our defence procurement across the whole nation. We must ensure that the boost in spending is offered through contracts to local businesses that go  above and beyond to support us. Our commitment to apprenticeships, through those three big firms, shows how we can do better.
National security has no price, so it is great to hear the Minister’s commitments, but perhaps he might clarify how he intends to ensure that the devolved nations can continue to play their role in supporting the wider United Kingdom defence industry, to make this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland even greater. If it is even greater, I would be very proud to be part of it.

James Sunderland: It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I am not a Minister—to echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray)—but I am a former serviceman, and I hope to bring some value, as a practitioner, to what we are discussing.
We know that the first duty of any Government is the defence of their people—that is quite clear—so the need to keep people safe is non-discretionary. Right now we have war raging across Europe, not too far away, and multiple threats are proliferating right across the globe. Given that the international landscape now is probably more dangerous, unstable and incendiary than it has been at any time since world war two, defence spending is absolutely essential. Voters care about their security, and many are nervous about what is happening across the world. Most importantly, it is our duty as politicians to keep them safe.
That is why the Government’s commitment to a defence budget equal to 2.5% of GDP by 2030 is so important, both strategically and politically. As a member of the UN Security Council, the UK’s continued role as a bastion of global rights and democracy can be underpinned only by hard power. It is a reality of history that we may yet be called upon to protect our own security and that of our allies. We know that the Defence Secretary has recently increased military aid to Ukraine, securing an extra £700 million and thereby taking Britain’s total contribution beyond £3 billion—that is a lot of money—so we are doing our bit.
On the 2.5% target, it is extra money, but the issue is what we do with it and how we spend it—that is important—so I advocate for a capability audit right now. The reason I say that is that the extra injection of funds means that we need to work out what we can now do. When I was working at Northwood permanent joint headquarters many years ago, we had this thing called the JOECR—the joint operational estimate of capability and readiness. In my view, with the extra money that we have now, we should be turning all those capabilities that are flashing red to green—in other words, we should plug the capability gaps—and not just on land, at sea and in the air, but in space and cyber. Yes, state-of-the-art platforms are fine, and yes, we must procure weapons that we know can beat our adversaries, but it is also about spending wisely and smartly where necessary.
My second point on the 2.5% is that we need to better operate what we already have so that every part of our lexicon works. We must not rely on the exquisite exclusivity that we have spoken so much about; we must ensure that all our platforms work and can be sustained across the battlespace.
In terms of equipment generally, as one part of capability we need to procure what we need and nothing more. It is about strategic lift as well as exquisite exclusivity. If we do not have the ships—the roll-on roll-off ferries—or the strategic lift, including C-17s and A400Ms, to get equipment and people right across the globe, there is no point having the kit in the first place. It is therefore about enabling expeditionary reach. We cannot put boots on the ground if we cannot get the boots there. Plus, Minister, it is about logistic tail, spares, the supply chain, sustainment, defence contractors, delivery and munitions. We must be careful to ensure that if we buy it, we will be able to use it and then fight it through, and it must be sustainable and enduring.
“Platform” is an interesting word. It means the platform on which a capability sits, but what is put on that platform also matters. I therefore favour a modular approach for future equipment programmes, whereby we can apply different degrees of mobility, firepower and protection, but it is the kit that is bolted on and bolted off that really matters, and that is the battle-winning equipment for me. For me, this is about a commonality of platforms, about spares, about logistics, about interoperability and about cannibalisation. If we run out of something, can we get it? With complex platforms and complex supply chains, we cannot, so let us please go for modular and for commonality.

Richard Foord: Is the hon. Member aware of the Supacat range of vehicles, which operate in much the way that he has described?

James Sunderland: I am very aware of Supacat. I have visited the company, which is in the hon. Member’s neck of the woods. It is a very impressive British company. Yes, we need to do more to ensure that it produces and builds what we need. Let us work with it a bit more on that. As the hon. Member suggests, this is about fewer variants, an easier supply chain, and not having equipment that is too complex to use or to maintain. That is very important: we should keep it cheap, simple and easy.
Let me say a little about NATO. As we know, it is the only show in town. It is the umbrella for European security in the north Atlantic. It now consists of 32 countries, and that is to be welcomed. It has responded magnificently to Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. It has galvanised the alliance since the invasion, in a way that Putin could not possibly have conceived. In many ways, it is much stronger because of what has happened. Article 5 is the prize for NATO membership. It has defined Putin’s actions in Ukraine, in that so far he has not attacked a NATO country. Why? He is worried about article 5, and that strategic uncertainty underpins our security in Europe.
However, there are issues with NATO. First, only 18 of its 32 member countries are currently committed to 2% of GDP, and that is not enough. In addition, the five non-EU members—the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Turkey and Norway—contribute 80% of the operating budget, which is outrageous, with 96% of the EU effectively reliant on NATO for its security. That is a stark contrast. Europe must therefore become much more responsible for its own security, and that is non-discretionary.

Jim Shannon: Does the hon. Gentleman share the concerns that some of us have about Trump’s comments? He has said that if he is the next president of the United  States—he may not be—and if NATO members do not up their commitment to 3%, the United States will withdraw and reduce its own commitment. Is Trump a danger?

James Sunderland: It is not for me to endorse Trump in this Chamber, but what I will say is that to a certain extent he is right. It is absolutely right that Europe must take on more responsibility for its own security, to allow the United States to worry about parts of the world that NATO will not necessarily worry about. It is important to ensure that the United States is not overly committed in Europe for the same reason. We know that NATO in Europe massively overmatches Russia, but we need to reach a point, strategically, at which Europe itself overmatches Russia, leaving the United States to focus on the parts of the world on which it needs to focus.
Another important point that I would like the Minister to note is that the UK has a global footprint that extends beyond NATO. We have discussed NATO a great deal this evening, but it is not just about NATO. East of Suez, where we have not had a presence for quite some time, we now have bases in Bahrain, Diego Garcia—we have always had one there—and of course Oman. If the UK is to be a bastion of global democracy, it is important for us to have that reach across the far side of the globe. We also have operating bases in Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falklands, Ascension and Diego Garcia. I mention that because it is really important for us to look after those bases. Were we to withdraw from Diego Garcia, for example, that will be a part of the world that we can no longer cover with our strategic reach. We therefore need to be very careful what we wish for politically.
It is imperative that the UK is able to fulfil its global commitments: in the middle east with carrier strike, as well as in the Falklands, west Africa, the Red sea, the Caribbean, the Baltic and the north Atlantic—the list goes on. We are not just focused on NATO, so it is really important that our defence capabilities extend beyond the north Atlantic and fulfil our global responsibilities. We need only look at where UK forces are deployed right now to realise how important that global footprint is. Dean Acheson, the former US Secretary of State, famously said that
“Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.”
Well, we clearly do have that role. We have seen that this evening in this debate, and it is very important that we are resourced and funded to be able to fulfil that role in perpetuity.
Lastly, what numbers should the armed forces consist of? There is a lot of debate about the Army being cut and whether 72,000 is enough, the size of the Navy and the state of the RAF, but the answer is that the forces must be big enough to do the job with which they are tasked. The answer therefore lies in defence tasks. The idea of having an Army or Navy of a certain size is pie in the sky. We know that we have to be able to resource them, but the important thing is that our forces have to be able to meet defence tasks. We know that we do not have enough ships—we need more frigates and more destroyers. Quantity has a quality all of its own. We have state-of-the-art equipment in the RAF, including the C-17, A400M, P-3, F-35B, Typhoon, and Tempest to come, but do we have enough of those platforms?
As for the Army, I keep being told by constituents, “Well, Mr Sunderland, the Army cannot fight Russia.” Of course the British Army is unlikely to be fighting Russia on its own—it is called NATO. We know that NATO has approximately 3 million troops to call upon, and we also know that NATO overmatches Russia in Europe. We need to play our part in NATO, not necessarily being perplexed about what we used to be able to do. The UK needs to be able to retain autonomous and unilateral forces to support NATO and its other tasks, as we have mentioned, so we cannot afford to be harder on numbers.
In conclusion, 2.5% is the right thing to do, but that number must keep rising to meet the threat. Do we need more ships? Yes, we do. A bigger Army? Perhaps. Is NATO fundamental to our future? It absolutely is. Trident? Unequivocally yes—we need to invest in it and reinforce it. It gives us a seat on the UN Security Council, which is really important. Do we need to focus on autonomous and remote platforms? Absolutely, yes. With cyber and space, we now have five domains, not three; we need to invest much more in those, as we saw today. We need to invest in precision capabilities. We need to have better training, better activity, more training, more exciting activity, and opportunities that keep people and attract them to stay. Richard Branson famously said, “We need to train people so well that they can leave, but treat them so well that they do not want to.” With the Minister in his place, I urge him to think about wokery—not too much of it in the armed forces, please; we still have a job to do. Dumbing down of standards? Absolutely not; we have to set the bar and maintain it, because discipline depends upon it. The divisive new accommodation model? No, thank you.

Bob Seely: It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland). I want to develop some points that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) made. I will make a few points about deterrence, and about the type of warfare we are facing. I will say a little about procurement, about Ukraine, and whether we are in a pre-war era and how useful that idea is.
The point that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made about deterrence was profound: the fundamental problem of the past century is that we failed to deter. We fought two world wars and just about won them both, so to us they are glorious things. Actually, both were catastrophes, in terms of power and in terms of lives lost. Half of my grandparents died: my German grandmother was killed by the Soviets, and my British grandfather, a colonel, was slaughtered while leading his regiment in north Africa. Winning wars is appallingly expensive; losing them is a catastrophe, clearly. But even fighting them when we can deter instead is a huge strategic error. Fighting two world wars effectively destroyed the British empire, which I think was in many ways a force for good—but let us not go there at the moment.
My right hon. Friend made the point that even spending 10% on deterrence is potentially much cheaper than spending 50% of our GDP to fight an existential war for our future, which is what Russians are being dishonestly  told that they face. Around the Solent—of course he knows this—are Palmerston’s follies, the forts to protect the fleet at Portsmouth, on the Isle of Wight and on the south side of Hampshire. They are seen as a colossal waste of money because they were never used, but I think Palmerston’s follies were wonderful because they were never used. It was about deterrence. We do not know whether they deterred anybody, but the fact remains that they were there and that fleet was not attacked, and we lived through decades of peace from the end of the Napoleonic wars through to world war one. I will come on to this in a second, but we are potentially entering a new period of great instability.
The Secretary of State talked about types of warfare, which is critical. If this £75 billion extra is simply going to buy another half dozen frigates that will survive an extra three minutes in the middle east, in the Red sea, before they are destroyed by swarm drones, there is little point having the additional kit. If there is any lesson of not only the Ukrainian war, but the Azerbaijani-Armenian war—the first war where cheap drones destroyed expensive Russian kit from above—it is that cheap mass kit is very good at destroying much more expensive kit.
As a power that seeks to use conventional force and that does not tend to think like revolutionaries, as the Russians or the Iranians do or as terrorist organisations do, I am concerned about the type of war we are planning to fight. If we are just going to buy more expensive kit that does not survive the battle, there is no point having it. We need to invest in the stuff that will not only protect destroyers and aircraft carriers, but enable us to turn the tide—to do as the Ukrainians are doing and to think like a nimble adversary facing a greater power, perhaps using mass drones ourselves to destroy larger forces in future, be they Chinese, Russian or others. It is a question of the type of warfare we are fighting.
To those of us who have read Russian doctrine, the first characteristic of modern conflict is the integration of military and non-military tools—information, spying, cyber or economic. This is the world of the 21st century, and the Secretary of State was right to point out that each century or each generation redefines war. This is a redefinition of conflict for our own era, and we are seeing it from China. The Russians are very conflict-minded, but so far the Chinese place less emphasis on physical, conventional force and more emphasis on the tools of economy, using Huawei, cyber-attacks and so on.
Even with China, however, if we are entering a pre-war phase, we see a build-up towards a potential attack on Taiwan in the next few years. How are we thinking about the type of warfare that the Taiwanese will need to fight to defend themselves? They will need not only cyber, to survive the first minutes of mass cyber-attacks, but mass drones to shoot down and destroy Chinese ships and aircraft if they attack.
That brings me to procurement. I am sure the Secretary of State was going to answer this, but did not because the Deputy Speaker cut him off when I was asking about radar on the Isle of Wight. Our procurement has to be smart. We have an absurd debate in this country: one minute we say, “Why, oh why, isn’t everything made in the UK?”, and the next minute we say, “Why, oh why, does everything cost so much more?” We have to get the balance right. We have to invest and sell stuff into export markets where we have that lead—in submarines, potentially  in radar and in other really good things where we still have the cutting edge—and we have to be much smarter about what we do and how we do it.
Most airmen and most people in the armed forces would tell us that the A400 is a pretty disastrous piece of kit. Maybe they have ironed out those problems in the past few years, but most people in the armed forces would much rather have kept the Hercules and run it with, I think, the C-14 or the Galaxy—[Interruption.] The C-17, sorry. It is a beautiful plane—gorgeous. They would rather have the Herc and the C-17. We had a better build deal with the Herc in this country, but for political reasons we bought the A400, which is deeply unpopular and cannot do much of the work, especially in the more rarefied ends of the military, that the Hercules could do. It is about smart procurement—not necessarily committing to buy everything British, but committing to do as much as possible British, as long as it is also delivering value for the taxpayer. That is an important distinction.
Moving on to Ukraine, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bracknell is right that it is shameful that the US is doing so much of the heavy lifting; it is appalling. He is also right about how little Europe is doing. Russia is gaining ground and gaining in confidence, which is a significant problem we face. An old friend, Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, is doing great work highlighting some new tactics on the eastern front, probably the most important of which are the use of glide bombs and CS gas. As a chemical weapon, CS gas is low level, cheap and less offensive to humanity than sarin. By using it on the frontline, the Russians are forcing Ukrainian troops out of their bunkers and their positions, so they become more vulnerable to wave attacks by Russian troops and to mortar and artillery fire.
We know that the artillery ratios at the moment are something like 10:1, so for every shell the Ukrainians fire, the Russians are firing 10 back. That will soon even out to 5:1 or maybe 3:1, but the use of CS gas is still proving to be a highly significant threat. A question I would like to put to the Secretary of State is, although I know we are being generous and doing lots of great things with kit, can we supply gas masks to the Ukrainians? Can we enable British companies that produce gas masks to sell them more quickly to the Ukrainians? They need that kit. From what my friends in the Ukrainian armed forces tell me, the Soviet-era gas masks are not fit for purpose and are costing lives.
On UK supply and support to Ukraine in relation to artillery shells, I do not want to keep banging on about this point, but the more there is transparency of supply, the more the Russians will see that we are in this for the long term. The Gucci kit—the high-end kit—is important, but the stuff that is going to enable Ukraine to hold its positions and not allow a Russian breakthrough of the kind we saw in Kharkiv is going to be the supply of 155 mm artillery shells, preferably with fewer types of western kit. The Ukrainians are running 17 different types of artillery kit that use a variety of shells, which is causing massive logistical issues. It is a remarkable achievement that the Ukrainians are even doing that.
I am delighted the AS-90s have gone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, that raises the question of where that kit is, but it has been put to good use. However,  those barrels do not last. There are only two or three retooling plants in Europe, so why have we not opened one? The war has been going on for two years. Why do we not have a production line for artillery shells? Why are we not re-barrelling or offering to re-machine kit? If we are, can we say so? That kit is so important; it is the bread and butter of this war.
I was going to make another point, but I will not; I will wind up there because I am running out of time. Finally, on messaging, people think it is a waste of time trying to message the Russians, but I wonder if we should be trying to do that more. If we look at the number of people who are actively supporting this war in Russia, as opposed to people who simply accept Putin’s power, there are lots of people in Russia who seem to be sitting on their hands. If we can try to manipulate Russian public opinion, it would be to our benefit.

Roger Gale: I call the Opposition spokesperson.

Maria Eagle: May I begin by welcoming the debate? As the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said, we used to have more of these debates, but it is very good we have had one in Government time. While the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said we are down to the usual suspects, it still has been a high-quality debate. There were excellent speeches from the Labour Benches by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Warley (John Spellar) and for North Durham (Mr Jones); from the Government Benches by the right hon. Members for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for New Forest East, and the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex, for North Wiltshire, for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely); and from other Opposition parties by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord). It has been an excellent debate.
The first duty of any Government is to keep the nation safe and protect our citizens. From deployments abroad and the response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home during the covid-19 pandemic, our armed forces are essential to our national defence, our national resilience and meeting our NATO obligations. Labour is deeply proud of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families, and of the contribution that they make to our country. Theirs is the ultimate public service, and their professionalism and bravery are rightly respected across the world. We thank them.
Labour is committed to strengthening our national defences and supporting our armed forces. Strong national defence is a secure foundation upon which Labour’s mission-driven Government will be built if we are fortunate enough to win the general election when it comes.
Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable. We are the party of NATO and Labour’s values of democracy, freedom and peace are embedded in its founding treaty. Article 5 is the cornerstone of Labour’s commitment to Britain’s security. Labour’s support for nuclear deterrence is total. We will upgrade the UK’s deterrent and build  the new submarines needed at Barrow. We believe that defence procurement can strengthen UK sovereignty, security and economic growth.
There has been much talk about the commitment to 2.5% of GDP, so I wish to make it clear that Labour is totally committed to 2.5%. In fact, the last time defence spending was at 2.5% was under a Labour Government in 2010. The current Conservative Government have cut defence spending. It has never been 2.5% in any of the past 14 years of Tory Government and we have seen the Army cut to its smallest size since Napoleon. My right hon. Friends the Members for Warley and for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton made those points very well in their contributions.
Labour will always do what is needed to defend Britain and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face. That is why we are committed to getting back to 2.5% as soon as we can in a responsible way. We will set out a credible plan to do so if we win the general election. It is why we will hold a strategic defence and security review if we do get into government to look properly at the threats that we face and at what we are already spending. It is simply not credible to claim, as the Government do, that it can be done by firing 72,000 civil servants, as the Secretary of State set out. The last time that this Government promised to make their defence plans add up by firing MOD civil servants in 2015, the number of civil servants in the MOD increased, so it is hardly credible now to claim that that will do the job.
In his opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the shadow Defence Secretary said that people will judge the Government on what they do, not on what they say, and that is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said that the Government’s promises were all smoke and mirrors and soundbites for the next general election, and it is hard to see them as anything else when they have been left so late in this Parliament to be announced.
The Institute for Government has said that the Government’s plan does not add up and is not credible. It says that cutting 70,000 civil service jobs will get nowhere near close to delivering the savings needed and that, even when using our research and development budgets as well, it will leave questions about how the rest will be paid for. The House welcomed the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford saying that the Defence Committee—the Chair of which is also in his place—will be scrutinising the £75 billion figure. I look forward to hearing what it has to say when it has done so.
The truth is that the Conservatives have failed on defence over the past 14 years. They have cut spending and they are still doing so. They have hollowed out our armed forces. Since 2010, the Conservatives have reduced our armed forces by more than 43,000 personnel, one in five ships has been removed from the Royal Navy, and more than 200 aircraft have been taken out of service in the past five years alone. They have cut the British Army to its smallest size since Napoleon, while the threats are increasing and NATO is boosting its high-readiness forces from 40,000 to 300,000. Ministers now plan to cut the Army further. Those are the facts.
Recruitment targets have been missed every year, so the Government have not even been able to recruit the numbers they want, and retention rates are dropping. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton referred in his remarks to the “outflow” and the state of reserve forces in respect of some research that he has been doing into the numbers. Therefore, the past 14 years have corroded the nation’s contract with those who serve, and we must do better. The Government have left personnel living in damp and mouldy housing and, perhaps not surprisingly, morale has fallen, as has retention. Is it any wonder, when we leave people living in the conditions that we have seen in some of our forces accommodation? Nearly half of all serving personnel live in the lowest grade single-living accommodation and more than 4,000 personnel live in accommodation so poor that the MOD is forced to reduce or scrap collecting rent altogether. Contractors hired by Ministers missed 21,000 maintenance appointments between April 2022 and February 2024.
The report of the independent Kerslake commission on armed forces housing entitled “Homes unfit for heroes” has called the state of forces housing
“a tax on the goodwill of service personnel and their families.”
During the cost of living crisis, the numbers of personnel and veterans on universal credit are rising, and some troops are even using food banks to get by.
In government, Labour will renew the country’s commitment to those who serve, set new standards for service accommodation and legislate for an armed forces commissioner to act as a strong independent champion for our forces and their families to improve service life. We will fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law, fulfilling the moral contract that our society makes with those who serve. I noticed that the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who speaks for the SNP, said that he wanted a representative body but was willing to support some of Labour’s proposed policies.
On procurement, the Conservatives have wasted over £15 billion of taxpayers’ money through mismanagement of defence procurement programmes, with over £5 billion wasted since 2019 alone. Forty-six of 52 major projects are not on time or not on budget. Ajax was supposed to be in service in 2017, and £4 billion has been spent so far, but there are no deployed vehicles and it will not be in service until the next decade. It is no wonder the Secretary of State is not listening and is too busy chatting—he does not want to hear about the failures of defence procurement on his watch, or the Government’s cost-saving cuts to E-7 Wedgetail, which are cutting the number of planes from five to three, with taxpayers footing 90% of the original cost to get only 60% of the planned capability.

Mark Francois: I am very critical of Wedgetail, but, just as a fact, on Ajax, the initial operating capability for the first vehicles is at the back end of 2025. That is next year, not in the next decade.

Maria Eagle: I accept that fact. If I said the next decade, that was not what I meant to say.
The Public Accounts Committee has described the defence procurement system as
“broken and repeatedly wasting…taxpayers’ money.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley was right that we need an industrial base and that short-term cost cutting will not do. He said that we need to speed up procurement, especially of administration, when it comes to making these decisions.
The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford said that we need a change of culture as well as reform in procurement, as did the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who set out his ideas about how best to change culture in organisations that can be quite resistant to change. I accept that that will be a difficult job, but I think there is acceptance across the House that it needs to be done.
At the moment, it is fair to say that the Government have been wasting taxpayers’ money hand over fist, and that is not just waste in procurement. Parliamentary answers show that the Department has lost £927 million to fraud since 2010, with £619 million of that since 2019—that would be enough to pay for 170 Challenger 3 tanks—yet the average length of time for Fraud Defence to conduct an investigation has increased from 519 days in 2019 to 742 days in 2023. Why? The Government seem to have stopped focusing on good administration.
A Labour Government will do better. Under a future Labour Government, we will drive deep defence procurement reform inside the MOD to reduce waste and ensure that our armed forces have the kit they need to defend Britain.
Labour is committed to strengthening our national defence and supporting our armed forces and their families. We will always do what is necessary to defend the country, and we will always spend what is necessary to deal with the threats that we face. Britain will be better defended under Labour.

Andrew Murrison: First, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
This has been a typically excellent debate. Across the House I think there is an understanding that, after two or three decades of relative tranquillity, we are living with the threat of proximate warfare. The price of freedom is of course eternal vigilance, and that is generally agreed across this House, as evidenced by the contributions made, such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think my right hon. Friend was arguing, slightly cheekily, for defence spending of 44% of GDP, although that was probably in the event of total war, which of course we all want to avoid. His proposition was that we should never have taken a peace dividend post the cold war, but I think that is a little harsh on our predecessors. However, plainly the situation has changed, and we must change with it. I hope very much that Europe will follow our 2.5% commitment, meaning £140 billion more for our collective defence against the primary aggressor. I would have been very disappointed had my right hon. Friend not rehearsed the arguments for a continuous at-sea deterrent, which of course is 16,000 tonnes of eternal vigilance.
The right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who speak for the Opposition, I think gave us the commitment we were seeking, which is to match the Government’s cash spend. However, the right hon. Gentleman was a bit flaky, if I may say so, on the  2.5%, or at least on when it would be achieved and how they would pay for it. That became clear from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), for which I am grateful.
The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne is indeed an honourable man and I like him very much, but I am bound to point out that his assurances that Labour is the party of defence run contrary to its management until very recently by a right hon. Member who had very different ideas indeed. The right hon. Gentleman was very keen to recommend the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to the British public in 2019 as the Prime Minister of this great country and to serve under his leadership for nearly five years, but heaven loves a sinner brought to repentance. I am also bound to point out that defence is not short of reviews, and another review would mean obfuscation. I suggest that is the very last thing our armed forces need right now. At best, it would introduce a huge measure of uncertainty when we simply cannot afford it.
The Chair of the Select Committee on Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin), rightly reflected on what 2.5% across the NATO alliance would mean. Where Britain leads, our European allies must follow: we are not in this on our own. He gave a magisterial romp around the geopolitical, societal and economic contribution of the whole defence enterprise.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) got tied up with nomenclature. There are other ranks in the Army and the RAF and ordinary seamen in the Navy, and I think that was the essence of his confusion. Either way there is nothing ordinary about the men and women of our armed forces, and either way he was rightly concerned about the junior ranks. I recall a previous conversation we had in this place during which he confused a pay award this year for them, which is 9.7%, with the 5.5% for senior officers; I assume he is happy with that. He wanted more Europe in defence, which I think means more European Union. He may have missed, for example, the Lancaster House treaties, the attendant A400M programme and unmanned aerial vehicles, and he may also have missed the joint expeditionary force. We are indeed co-operating wherever we can with our European friends and neighbours.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) gave a very detailed and authoritative account of kit, majoring on air defence. He catalogued some of the procurement issues that have historically bedevilled the defence enterprise, but he resisted reference to his favourite defence contractor, for which we are very grateful. I know that he supports the integrated procurement model announced in February.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), to whom I always listen with a great deal of interest, rightly highlighted industrial skills. I have said it before but I will say it again: the Ministry of Defence is this country’s No. 1 employer of apprentices, and we are exceptionally proud of that. He rightly implied that the men and women of our armed forces—both civilians and people in uniform—have a choice. Of course they do, and they very often exercise it; our economy is the better for it. I make no apology for injecting trades and skills into our armed forces and our defence enterprise; it benefits us all. The trick is retaining those people and then perhaps pulling them back in at some future date. He will be familiar with that, because he has read the Haythornthwaite report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) rightly highlighted the perils of coalition, but to be fair we have got the Liberal Democrats to commit to CASD, and maybe even CASD with missiles—for that, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has done us a great service today. The points that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex made about leadership were extremely well made.
The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) spoke about the recruitment and retention issues that the armed forces certainly have, in common with just about all our allies. Meanwhile, we deal with all our defence commitments. We are rightly proud of the men and women who serve.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was fighting a bit of a rearguard action on defence spending, which the Opposition Front Benchers now say they support. If he wants to disregard the costs for Ukraine, he needs to have a word with his colleagues. Given that I need to face down Putin’s naked aggression, he might as well carve out other parts of the defence budget and say that they do not count either. I am sure he would not want to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire spoke about votes in Parliament and about warfighting, and I agree with his analysis. We forget—do we not?—what a grave mistake the Iraq war was. Having been heavily involved with the Etherton process, I entirely agree with his remarks about LGBT people and I salute the role that the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces played early on in that process.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke about a variety of subjects. Interestingly, at the end of his remarks he committed his party to, I think, a regular Army of 82,000. I am not quite sure where that figure came from, but I assume we will hear about the attendant spending pledge in due course—or maybe not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) talked about apprentices, defence-related jobs and R&D. That is not surprising given that Abbey Wood in Filton puts his constituency at the beating heart of the defence enterprise; he is a constant advocate for both.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is a strong advocate for the defence enterprise in Northern Ireland, and his part in particular. He rightly highlighted the further opportunities in Northern Ireland, which I know about full well as a former Northern Ireland Office Minister and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke of enablement and logistics—of interoperability, modularity and plug and play—from a position of real expertise as a former senior logistics officer. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) rightly highlighted the changing nature of warfare. Mass matters, but so does tech, as we can see with potential game changers such as DragonFire. I am not sure I agree with him about A400M, but we can perhaps have a debate later over a cuppa or some such.
In our more dangerous world, the Government believe that spending 2.5% of GDP on defence must become the minimum NATO benchmark as Putin ramps up his  wartime economy as part of a network of authoritarian states that are attacking our allies and interests. NATO must respond, and I am proud that the UK is leading among European allies through our defence reforms and our 2.5% commitment, verifiable against NATO rules, our £75 billion cash boost for defence from a flat cash baseline, and our additional package of support for Ukraine.
As Putin lays waste to his military and recklessly exposes his strengths and weaknesses to general view, we watch, we learn and we act. Our defence reforms are making our industrial base stronger. Our investment in our conventional forces, stockpiles and innovation makes us more capable and more lethal. Our investment in our alliances is making us and our friends more secure. Our investment in our independent nuclear capability will always make adversaries back off.
I finish by paying tribute to the men and women of our armed forces. They are the best of us, and as we enter a new age of high-tech warfare we need to remember that, day in, day out. It is our people and those who support them who put the great in Great Britain. On that at least I hope we can all agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered defence.

Business without Debate

Energy Security and Net Zero

Ordered,
That Dr Dan Poulter be discharged from the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee and Dr Thérèse Coffey be added.— (Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Public Accounts

Ordered,
That Mrs Flick Drummond be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Richard Fuller be added.—(Sir Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Liz Twist: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Blaydon and all those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her vital work in pursuing justice. My constituent Diane lost her brother Graham Fox aged just 26 as a result of contaminated blood. When I spoke to Diane about presenting this petition, her message was clear: do not forget. I present this petition with those words in mind.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Blaydon,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002950]

Holly Lynch: I rise to present a petition on the same terms as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). In doing so, I pay tribute to the Burkert family, who lost their father, who was a single parent of five, in this terrible, avoidable tragedy.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Halifax,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002972]

Wayne David: I rise to present a petition that calls for the immediate implementation of the final recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. It is sent by my constituents in Caerphilly, and in particular Lee Stay and Kirk Ellis, two brave victims of contaminated blood.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Caerphilly,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002973]

Tamar Crossings

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Fletcher.)

Sheryll Murray: Before I start, I give an apology: so many Members asked to intervene in this debate that I have decided not to take any interventions in the interests of time. I do apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). [Laughter.]
I will start by setting out a brief history. In the 1950s, it became clear that a bridge was needed between Plymouth and south-east Cornwall, as the existing ferries could no longer cope. The councils went to the Government, but the Government of the day could not afford the bridge just after world war two. A decision was taken at council level to fund a bridge at Saltash and incorporate what they called the floating bridge at Torpoint. Those integral parts of the Tamar crossings were set out in an Act of Parliament and given the go-ahead. The crossings have become critical pieces of national infrastructure, with around 4,000 vehicle crossings a day in the early 1960s becoming around 4,000 vehicle crossings an hour today on the bridge alone.
Between 2001 and 2005, I was a member of the Tamar crossings joint committee while serving as a Cornwall county councillor. The minutes are no longer easily accessible, but I remember that a sum of money was set aside for replacing the three crossings at Torpoint, as the 50-year-old chain ferries needed replacing. It is important to note that, as far as I can remember, no loans were taken by the joint committee before that time. Around the same time, it was found that the Tamar bridge could not support the European requirement for goods vehicle weights or the quantity of traffic, and money was needed to strengthen and widen it with the installation of two cantilevers.
To carry out those essential works, it was decided to take out a loan to cover the cost of the replacement ferries from the then Cornwall County Council. I do not have the full figure, but I remember that the loan was around £10 million over 25 years. I launched the second chain ferry, Tamar II, at Ferguson boatyard on the Clyde. What could not be foreseen is that this set a trend, which many will say was unavoidable, where borrowing has been seen as the way to cover maintenance costs, and renewing, replacing or even building new infrastructure.
The language since I sat on the joint committee has also changed, with council officers now claiming the crossings are on a “user pays” basis, rather than using what is set out in the Acts of Parliament which clearly state that they should be “self-funding”. That would indicate that the only way to fund the maintenance costs and new infrastructure is from toll income, which is clearly not the case. That is backed up by the fact that income is already generated from other means, including advertising boards on the ferries and operating the studs in the Saltash tunnel on behalf of National Highways.
Today, should the Secretary of State agree the latest toll revision order, the tolls will have increased by 100% in four years. For many people who use the crossings to access the district general hospital at Derriford in Plymouth, travel to their place of work or visit our main city, they  face what can only be described as an additional tax of £15 per week. I accept that a concession is available through the TamarTag, but it comes with an initial charge and a monthly service charge, which does not make it cost-effective for the non-regular users among my constituents, or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
The financial situation has now become quite serious. The two local authorities responsible for the crossings should, according to the Acts, fund any deficit, but they say they have no budget for that. Decisions have been taken over the years in a piecemeal way to increase borrowing, rising from around £10 million for the initial loan to around £41 million and increasing. If this was a business, it would be bankrupt.
Various decisions have been taken that have not paid attention to good financial practice. During the covid period, Government grants paid to both local authorities amounted to £1.6 million in total, which I believe represented about 85% of the reduction in income, yet despite the joint committee agreeing ways to mitigate the risk for toll collectors, two weeks later the Liberal Democrat portfolio holder and joint chair for Cornwall and the Labour portfolio holder and joint chair for Plymouth took the decision to stop charging tolls altogether. Had they not taken that decision, which was not put to the joint committee, the additional 15% shortfall in income could have been received. My constituents, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, are clear: this cannot go on. Our constituents are being penalised for living and working on different sides of the Tamar, and it would seem that no one cares.
The Road Haulage Association faces similar excessive charges. Figures it has provided me with, which do not take account of the increase outlined in the latest application, show that an average member based in south-east Cornwall with seven trucks ranging from 18 tonnes to 44 tonnes paid tolls of £4,550 in 2020. That rose to £6,881 in 2022. The 2023 cost, to August 2023, amounted to £5,409. Another haulier with a fleet of 50 trucks in 2020 faced tolls of £32,083, which increased to £58,100 in 2022, and the cost to August 2023 with 75 trucks was £90,730. A final example is that of a national operator with a local distribution centre based in Plymouth, with between 150 and 200 trucks using the crossings, who faced toll costs of £50,000 between December 2020 and July 2021. Those costs rose to £86,000 between August 2022 and July 2023, and that will be reflected in the prices paid for goods by people in Cornwall and Plymouth.
My constituents cannot be expected to continue to fund vanity projects such as multimillion pound offices on top of the council tax that they already pay to the two authorities. I notice that other projects are planned such as the refurbishment of the toll collection booths at the Tamar bridge, which are not yet 20 years old, and when an automatic number plate recognition system is already being explored. There is a proposal to upgrade the offices and workshops at the Torpoint ferry. I do not believe that enough attention has been paid to cost savings or to generating income other than tolls, but we need to change that. Income could come from a shop or restaurant incorporated at the offices—an idea that was   raised by my friend Councillor Lennox-Boyd. There is land held by the bridge that is not fully utilised. There are also further marketing opportunities at the crossings.
The Minister will know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and I met with his predecessor, and I have met him about this situation. The Peninsula Transport Group has also submitted a request for some funding towards the annual maintenance costs of the Tamar bridge, which could be awarded from road investment strategy 3. The bridge is an integral part of the A38 trunk road, which was relocated to run through Saltash when the bridge was constructed. Prior to this, the trunk road ran through Torpoint and was joined by the ferry which was described as a “floating bridge”. I believe that the funding that the Peninsula Transport Group has requested should be conditional on no increase in tolls for the next five-year period and be accompanied by the setting up of the promised working group to look at the future funding of the crossings, outside of but including the two local authorities.
It should be noted that there are other ways to cross the Tamar, but they are not local to Plymouth, the largest city on the peninsula. The other main crossing is via the A30 at the Dunheved bridge which is over 20 miles away by road from Saltash. That bridge was built by the Government in around 1978 as part of the Launceston bypass. It is maintained by the Government—indeed, it had to be rebuilt just under 20 years ago due to concrete cancer—and there is no toll at this crossing.
There are also a number of very old bridges, such as the one in my constituency at Gunnislake New Bridge. That crossing is not fit for large, heavy lorries, and has on many occasions suffered damage and been out of action. Indeed, recently the Labour councillor for Gunnislake has highlighted the air quality of the village and suggested that another bridge be built. One could ask if the shadow Chancellor would agree to that.
I also note that in 2012 the Government deferred the debt on the Humber bridge by £150 million, conditional on the tolls being halved. All I am asking is that the Tamar crossings are treated in the same way. The crossings are vital for both Cornwall and Plymouth and complement each other. They are quite rightly linked by Act of Parliament and must never be separated. If an incident occurs on the bridge, the Torpoint ferry service is necessary, and I would ask that any financial contribution is also conditional on the current timetable for the Torpoint ferry being retained at least on current levels of service. Sadly, some local opposition councillors and MPs have made comments in the press about a reduced service for the ferry if no toll revision order is granted, which is unacceptable. It is time to stop this politically motivated scaremongering—

Luke Pollard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Roger Gale: Order. The hon. Lady has made it plain that she is not giving way.

Sheryll Murray: This important matter for residents of Cornwall and Plymouth should, in my opinion, surmount party politics. I refer the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) to a report on “Spotlight” this evening saying that a Member of Parliament for a constituency a long way from the bridge and the ferry has suggested that the ferry charge more.
I will now turn to the future of the crossings. The Minister should set up a working group, including representatives of all user groups, MPs, local councillors and local authorities, to consider putting the crossing on the same basis as the Dunheved bridge on the A30, which is one of some 10,000 bridges maintained by National Highways. In the meantime, I ask the Department for a contribution from National Highways towards the maintenance costs of the Tamar bridge.
Finally, I will expand on the modernisation of the toll collection system and updating to ANPR. Queues frequently build up because of tag failure and other matters related to the toll collection system, which results in many people from Plymouth and south-east Cornwall missing appointments and simply not getting to work on time. It also has a knock-on effect on the wider area, with road hauliers telling me that research has found that, for every minute a heavy goods vehicle sits in traffic, it accrues a cost of £1.30. On crossings such as the Tamar, each HGV sitting in traffic for 60 minutes at peak times or during heavy congestion will accrue a cost of £78. An ANPR system would help to alleviate this, and I ask the Minister to consider covering the costs of the tollbooth removal in the next five-year major road network programme.
Some 6,300 people signed the petition sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View and me. These people object to the toll increase following so closely the increase in January 2023, which would be a doubling in four years. It is now in the Secretary of State’s gift to refuse, and we ask him to do so. We know that we need to find alternative funding and, as I have outlined this evening, it could be annual funding from the RIS3 programme.
My final ask is for a public inquiry to be held before any decision is made to increase the toll. This has happened in the past for all but one toll revision order, and our constituents must be able to have their say. We received a copy of the letter that the joint Chairs of the Joint Committee sent to the Secretary of State last Friday, which has been copied to all MPs in Plymouth and Cornwall, stating:
“An intervention by your department supporting the crossings may enable the toll to be frozen.”
Our petition was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice).
I hope the Minister will look favourably on this request to help freeze the Tamar toll tax for our constituents, and also to immediately pull together a working group, or at least to provide support for us to set one up locally, so that a fairer way of financing these crossings can be found. An intervention by his Department to support the crossings may enable the tolls to be frozen.
Much has been made about levelling up. Doing away with this extra tax on the people of our area would be the single greatest thing that could be done to achieve this. It would create a level playing field for business and stop a regressive tax on residents that is in no way related to how much people can pay. It would also help to allow Plymouth’s freeport status to flourish. I ask the  Government to help now, and to look in the longer term at righting what the Government could not afford to do just after world war two.

Guy Opperman: It is an honour and a privilege to respond to my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). She has once again made the case for her constituents with her usual assiduity, verve and passion, and I salute her for that. This is not the first time she has raised this matter in the House, and nor, I suspect, will it be the last; and it is not the first time I have received correspondence from her. Indeed, I receive it on a virtually bi-monthly basis, but I salute her for that as well. What she is doing is standing up for her constituents, and this is an issue that dates back quite some time.
I shall have to choose my words slightly carefully, for reasons that my hon. Friend will understand. An application for a toll revision, received on 2 May, will be considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, and that will constitute a quasi-judicial decision that I do not want to prejudice in any way. However, I want to give my hon. Friend as many answers as I can, in as much detail as I can. I am also aware that a petition dated 23 March has been presented by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my hon. Friend herself, my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice). It is to their credit that they have made the case, as indeed have thousands of residents of the local area, and it is to their credit that they have been able to come to the House and be heard in an appropriate way.

Richard Foord: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: I am so sorry, but not going to give way at this stage.
I am of course conscious of a detailed file of correspondence dating back some considerable time. As the hon. Lady will know, there are a number of bridges and tunnels on local public roads up and down the country that are operated either by the local highway authority or by private companies. Tolls continue to help repay the costs of the construction and continued maintenance of those crossings. I do not want to go into the nuts and bolts of the Tamar Bridge Act 1957, because I think I would fail to speak with the same eloquence as my hon. Friend, who is clearly acquainted with the Act and the consequential secondary provisions, the schedules and all matters pertaining, and has probably read the Committee notes in great detail as well.
The Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry are tied together under the 1957 Act, which ensures that proceeds from the crossings are ringfenced and expenditure is limited to the operation, maintenance and improvements of the crossings. Crucially, it also limits any unjustified accumulation of reserves. The bridge and the ferry are jointly owned and operated by Cornwall Council and Plymouth City Council, but, as my hon. Friend said,  they constitute a vital piece of infrastructure, carrying some 18 million vehicles a year. She rightly made the point on behalf of her constituents, but the freight industry benefits massively—today I met representatives of the RHA, who were passionate about making that point.
The money that is needed to operate, maintain and improve the two crossings currently comes from toll  charges, with no specific funding from the Government or the owners of the two crossings. However, some money is contributed indirectly. National Highways makes an operational contribution each year, which enables the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to monitor the Saltash tunnel tidal flow system. As was announced recently, there is funding for the A38 Manadon interchange transport scheme, promoted by the city council, amounting to about £132 million, with an outline business case stage of £156 million. Communications on that will be issued shortly. Welcome announcements have also been made about the A374, A386 and A3064 Plymouth improvements schemes, amounting to £42 million, with a total estimate of £49 million at the OBC stage.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Government have, on the back of the increased settlement at the last Budget in 2023, and by reason of the decisions on the second leg of High Speed 2, provided enhanced funding arising from the £8.3 billion that is shared out around the local authorities, but with a £36 million total for 2024-25 for Cornwall, and an increased total in relation to Plymouth, as I understand it.
In relation to the specifics, on 8 February, in response to my hon. Friend’s parliamentary question, and in subsequent correspondence, I have set out the position in relation to river and estuarial crossings. They will usually be funded by tolls, recognising the extra cost of their construction and maintenance, as well as the substantial benefits for users. The Prime Minister then also answered my hon. Friend at Prime Minister’s questions on 20 March, when he was pleased to indicate that the Transport Minister would address the matter shortly, and I was of course delighted to receive that instruction. I will not go into Hansard in detail, but he explained that any application for a toll revision, whereby the responsible authorities can seek a change, would need to be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport, who is my boss.
I can confirm that, since that exchange, a toll revision application in respect of the Tamar crossings was received on 2 May. The next step in the process is that an application for a toll increase will be advertised in the local press with details of the proposal to users of the crossings. There is then a 42-day objection period. If any objections to the proposed revisions—whether from individuals or collective bodies—are not subsequently  withdrawn, a public inquiry is held. Where such an inquiry is held, the Secretary of State must have regard to its findings when deciding whether to revise the toll. I cannot address the findings of the Secretary of State, but clearly all representations made on these issues are considered, and clearly my hon. Friend will make many representations—I think that is a given.

Richard Foord: Will the Minister give way?

Guy Opperman: I will not give way; I will echo the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.
It is the responsibility of the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee to work to find efficiencies in the operating costs so that the crossings are run as cost- effectively as possible. I would also like to raise an important initiative that is being taken forward locally: the Tamar bridge and Torpoint ferry joint committee has agreed its new “Tamar 50” approach. I cast no aspersions on whether it is a good or bad approach—it would not be appropriate for me to do so—but it is important that I put on the record that the Government are aware of the approach.
Clearly, the nine-point plan that the committee has set out provides users of the crossings with a more stable and certain future. Ideally, there is a degree of confidence on the way ahead, and people can see visible improvements to the structure. Critical safety works and the operational necessities that apply need to be seen. As I understand it, the plan includes work to look at the feasibility of free-flow tolling. That could be considered when a suitable funding source becomes available. My hon. Friend has addressed that, and I take her points with due seriousness.
As the Prime Minister outlined on 20 March, this is a real opportunity for key stakeholders to make their views about the crossings heard, and I encourage all colleagues and constituents—not just the thousands with strongly held views who have submitted the petition, and not just my hon. Friend with her many letters—to come forward with their views.

Luke Pollard: Will the Minister allow me to come forward with my view now?

Guy Opperman: I do not think it appropriate in these particular circumstances, bearing in mind the individual restrictions that I have in addressing these points.
My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall has put her points strongly on the record. We take due notice of that. There is a quasi-judicial process that follows, and we hope that will be expedited and take place very soon.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.